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
|
Return-Path: <j@toom.im>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 51C1525A
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Wed, 28 Oct 2015 22:41:47 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from c.mail.sonic.net (c.mail.sonic.net [64.142.111.80])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BB234172
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Wed, 28 Oct 2015 22:41:46 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from [192.168.1.190] (63.135.62.197.nwinternet.com [63.135.62.197]
(may be forged)) (authenticated bits=0)
by c.mail.sonic.net (8.15.1/8.15.1) with ESMTPSA id t9SMfdC1012326
(version=TLSv1 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT);
Wed, 28 Oct 2015 15:41:40 -0700
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\))
Content-Type: multipart/signed;
boundary="Apple-Mail=_CFEF61F8-F305-4AE2-949C-CB82C81BF0D6";
protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512
X-Pgp-Agent: GPGMail 2.5.2
From: Jonathan Toomim <j@toom.im>
In-Reply-To: <201510280713.56677.luke@dashjr.org>
Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2015 15:41:39 -0700
Message-Id: <554CB626-4CCC-4607-9A1F-E583A52989A6@toom.im>
References: <291B85A6-D8D4-443B-B03B-C675CBEEC662@toom.im>
<201510280713.56677.luke@dashjr.org>
To: Luke Dashjr <luke@dashjr.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6)
X-Sonic-CAuth: UmFuZG9tSVZIVdxyzHGnyD1aflqmXeQNZ32ER4McDfr0mIPMPA+gW/EgQrUihKFuwGdMeFtDH4v0Wf07ORVMZovnT4I5HWT+
X-Sonic-ID: C;PgCPDcV95RG+vb0U9jFv0A== M;in77DcV95RG+vb0U9jFv0A==
X-Sonic-Spam-Details: 0.0/5.0 by cerberusd
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW
autolearn=ham version=3.3.1
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
smtp1.linux-foundation.org
Cc: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Composite priority: combining fees and
bitcoin-days into one number
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Bitcoin Development Discussion <bitcoin-dev.lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/options/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2015 22:41:47 -0000
--Apple-Mail=_CFEF61F8-F305-4AE2-949C-CB82C81BF0D6
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset=us-ascii
On Oct 28, 2015, at 12:13 AM, Luke Dashjr <luke@dashjr.org> wrote:
> On Wednesday, October 28, 2015 4:26:52 AM Jonathan Toomim via =
bitcoin-dev
> wrote:
>=20
> This is all in the realm of node policy, which must be easy to
> modify/customise in a flexible manner. So simplifying other code in a =
way that
> makes the policy harder to configure is not a welcome change.
>=20
> That is, by making the code simpler, if you make custom policies (such =
as the
> current default) harder, it is better to leave the main code less =
simple.
I think the only custom policy that this change would make harder to =
implement is the current default policy of 5% reserved space. Right now, =
in e.g. CreateNewBlock, you have two loops, each of which follows a =
completely different policy, plus additional code for corner cases like =
ensuring that a tx isn't added twice. If I were a miner and a mediocre =
programmer (which I actually am, on both accounts), and I wanted to =
change the mining policy, I would probably take a look at that code, =
groan, give up, and go sharpen my pickaxe instead.
This change could be written in an abstract way. We could define an API =
that is calibrated on the whole mempool, then has a method that takes =
transactions and returns priority scores.
If someone wanted to write a reserved-space algorithm in this priority =
API scheme, then they could just set it up so that most transactions =
would get a priority score between e.g. zero and 8999, and any =
transactions that were supposed to be prioritized would get a priority =
level over 9000. Easy enough?
--Apple-Mail=_CFEF61F8-F305-4AE2-949C-CB82C81BF0D6
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename=signature.asc
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature;
name=signature.asc
Content-Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Comment: GPGTools - https://gpgtools.org
iQEcBAEBCgAGBQJWMU8jAAoJEIEuMk4MG0P1zHUIAIV/s2lNMDNf470evjWPFXMK
Md0xyY4yXk0goPIaME1WjVyqCrFlRqCbn6oRxQGFV3XiOP3gITC4rJO9cY4Mcr0y
pCA5BAROUI/uXBo4eOFIDlJZ98N8D3luZ2P5pX/KdGaK49unFuKrqB7wbZTHjA1t
bBwyb9vwRvAHgEoFvKAga/aRx1hjQ/VCJyIRvh70TJzcMAIccyIPTYUEHQY8sakD
J+lo1Y9nCZOu4f6bY/S0JiYBU25ot5OI3mvLBbBBPiU3pnhjGDppCyJTRk66RNY8
xxLlCSJVGDa/6ScCtjAILck+a75Y3uIxZXbzwhpQXpUCdpYIFqfGQH9Sa4oPgoI=
=8alk
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--Apple-Mail=_CFEF61F8-F305-4AE2-949C-CB82C81BF0D6--
|
