Message-ID: <55929E7F.8020301@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2015 09:49:51 -0400
From: Chris Pacia <ctpacia@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64;
	rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
References: <20150629050726.GA502@savin.petertodd.org>	<5591E10F.9000008@thinlink.com>	<20150630013736.GA11508@savin.petertodd.org>
	<CALqxMTH_5rtOs=aSNiVrfsG_sqQDCnTr-8qBH3Qji+8g_dAMcQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CALqxMTH_5rtOs=aSNiVrfsG_sqQDCnTr-8qBH3Qji+8g_dAMcQ@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP: Full Replace-by-Fee deployment schedule
Precedence: list


On 06/30/2015 09:12 AM, Adam Back wrote:
> It is correct to view first-seen miner and relay policy as
> honour-based, though it is the current default.
>
>
What would be the effect of IBLT on the first seen policy? It seems that
if a miner has to broadcast extra data with his blocks because he's
using full RBF and everyone else is using first-seen then his blocks are
at a disadvantage in terms of propagation. That wouldn't make first-seen
a hard consensus rule, but rather one rational miners are likely to
follow. Or is this effect likely to be minimal?