1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
|
Received: from sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.191]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-1.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <gavinandresen@gmail.com>) id 1Xj8EM-0008Je-RS
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Tue, 28 Oct 2014 14:58:42 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
designates 209.85.213.49 as permitted sender)
client-ip=209.85.213.49; envelope-from=gavinandresen@gmail.com;
helo=mail-yh0-f49.google.com;
Received: from mail-yh0-f49.google.com ([209.85.213.49])
by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1Xj8EL-00052V-UK
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Tue, 28 Oct 2014 14:58:42 +0000
Received: by mail-yh0-f49.google.com with SMTP id t59so394485yho.22
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Tue, 28 Oct 2014 07:58:36 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.236.227.163 with SMTP id d33mr3398613yhq.85.1414508316570;
Tue, 28 Oct 2014 07:58:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.170.133.82 with HTTP; Tue, 28 Oct 2014 07:58:36 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAPWm=eX0MMBOPvugETxq+pyDzZ00xc90hZAJe8qgg4Shftm-9w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAPWm=eXxs=AfFhaT2EeGFsR+2r96WcaOeWL_Z59-6LixH+=4AQ@mail.gmail.com>
<CABsx9T35NdEkFmdVDX19gOO1p0h1M_ZDK1iXxTFNLHE9dtC3hQ@mail.gmail.com>
<CAPWm=eX0MMBOPvugETxq+pyDzZ00xc90hZAJe8qgg4Shftm-9w@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2014 10:58:36 -0400
Message-ID: <CABsx9T2ET_Guoa8J-9irjwOo7vN+9Y3TyEUhdDBWxaYKV1J95w@mail.gmail.com>
From: Gavin Andresen <gavinandresen@gmail.com>
To: Alex Morcos <morcos@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b604d10bdbbd405067ce144
X-Spam-Score: -0.6 (/)
X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net.
See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details.
-1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for
sender-domain
0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider
(gavinandresen[at]gmail.com)
-0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record
1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message
-0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from
author's domain
0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature,
not necessarily valid
-0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature
X-Headers-End: 1Xj8EL-00052V-UK
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Reworking the policy estimation code (fee
estimates)
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: <bitcoin-development.lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_name=bitcoin-development>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2014 14:58:43 -0000
--047d7b604d10bdbbd405067ce144
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 10:30 AM, Alex Morcos <morcos@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Do you think it would make sense to make that 90% number an argument to
> rpc call? For instance there could be a default (I would use 80%) but then
> you could specify if you required a different certainty. It wouldn't
> require any code changes and might make it easier for people to build more
> complicated logic on top of it.
>
RE: 80% versus 90% : I think a default of 80% will get us a lot of "the
fee estimation logic is broken, I want my transactions to confirm quick and
a lot of them aren't confirming for 2 or 3 blocks."
RE: RPC argument: I'm reluctant to give too many 'knobs' for the RPC
interface. I think the default percentage makes sense as a
command-line/bitcoin.conf option; I can imagine services that want to save
on fees running with -estimatefeethreshold=0.5 (or
-estimatefeethreshold=0.95 if as-fast-as-possible confirmations are
needed). Setting both the number of confirmations and the estimation
threshold on a transaction-by-transaction basis seems like overkill to me.
--
--
Gavin Andresen
--047d7b604d10bdbbd405067ce144
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<div dir=3D"ltr"><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On T=
ue, Oct 28, 2014 at 10:30 AM, Alex Morcos <span dir=3D"ltr"><<a href=3D"=
mailto:morcos@gmail.com" target=3D"_blank">morcos@gmail.com</a>></span> =
wrote:<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-l=
eft:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div>Do you think it =
would make sense to make that 90% number an argument to rpc call?=A0 For in=
stance there could be a default (I would use 80%) but then you could specif=
y if you required a different certainty.=A0 It wouldn't require any cod=
e changes and might make it easier for people to build more complicated log=
ic on top of it.</div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>RE: 80% versus=
90% : =A0I think a default of 80% will get us a lot of "the fee estim=
ation logic is broken, I want my transactions to confirm quick and a lot of=
them aren't confirming for 2 or 3 blocks."</div><div><br></div><d=
iv>RE: RPC argument: =A0I'm reluctant to give too many 'knobs' =
for the RPC interface. I think the default percentage makes sense as a comm=
and-line/bitcoin.conf option; I can imagine services that want to save on f=
ees running with -estimatefeethreshold=3D0.5 =A0(or -estimatefeethreshold=
=3D0.95 if as-fast-as-possible confirmations are needed). Setting both the =
number of confirmations and the estimation threshold on a transaction-by-tr=
ansaction basis seems like overkill to me.</div></div><div><br></div>-- <br=
>--<br>Gavin Andresen<br>
</div></div>
--047d7b604d10bdbbd405067ce144--
|
