Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 10F04B13 for ; Thu, 16 Jul 2015 09:39:08 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from pmx.vmail.no (pmx.vmail.no [193.75.16.11]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7AF06168 for ; Thu, 16 Jul 2015 09:39:07 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pmx.vmail.no (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (pmx.isp.as2116.net) with SMTP id 8BADE61F4D for ; Thu, 16 Jul 2015 11:39:05 +0200 (CEST) Received: from smtp.bluecom.no (smtp.bluecom.no [193.75.75.28]) by pmx.vmail.no (pmx.isp.as2116.net) with ESMTP id 5936E5F151 for ; Thu, 16 Jul 2015 11:39:05 +0200 (CEST) Received: from coldstorage.localnet (unknown [81.191.182.184]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.bluecom.no (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7961A19F for ; Thu, 16 Jul 2015 11:39:04 +0200 (CEST) From: Thomas Zander To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2015 11:38:54 +0200 Message-ID: <2509294.8eWsy7oNj2@coldstorage> User-Agent: KMail/4.14.1 (Linux/3.16.0-4-amd64; KDE/4.14.2; x86_64; ; ) In-Reply-To: <55A6E98C.3090307@thinlink.com> References: <55A5A837.1090203@thinlink.com> <2272402.KPsXmgHuuj@coldstorage> <55A6E98C.3090307@thinlink.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Mempool "Expected Byte Stay" policy X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Development Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2015 09:39:08 -0000 On Wednesday 15. July 2015 16.15.24 Tom Harding via bitcoin-dev wrote: > On 7/15/2015 12:18 PM, Thomas Zander via bitcoin-dev wrote: > > On Tuesday 14. July 2015 17.24.23 Tom Harding via bitcoin-dev wrote: > >> Rule 2: A transaction and its dependents are evicted on its 2-hour > >> anniversary, whether space is required or not > > > > Instead of 2 hours, why not a number of blocks? > > So users/wallets can know when they should rebroadcast and consider > increasing the fee. > > > Using 12 blocks, there is a 5% chance he has to wait 3 hours.* > > Using 120 minutes, there is only a .23% chance that fewer than 4 blocks > have occurred.** Using the good old saying; results in the past are no indication of the future. I see a logic error in your thinking. Your assumption that time is a better indicator is false. Naturally time itself is universal, but blocks are known by wallets too. Its just as good. This assumption of yours leans heavily on block mining times, and that is not guaranteed in the future. Imagine one day half the miners dropping and blocks take much longer for a week or so. Your assumptions just broke the mempool. -- Thomas Zander