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
|
Return-Path: <tier.nolan@gmail.com>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 229CFBC8
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 10 Jul 2015 19:39:16 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-qk0-f174.google.com (mail-qk0-f174.google.com
[209.85.220.174])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CAE75166
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 10 Jul 2015 19:39:15 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by qkcl188 with SMTP id l188so30509251qkc.1
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 10 Jul 2015 12:39:15 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:cc
:content-type; bh=GnF0W1zoBVn2v7m0tg/fcv0pVPZmzMzVRQZJtMIGBZc=;
b=K9fOBNUZ/xpiXtgI6oAqKSIUmeoLW2cQ8/qnPE7p8UO3fp2o7JQq47zboU5VlxzaPh
J+vwmyLKnyWefu2rUxEuPot+JAwOO+W1KourO9BeDRj0QNcLKXijLjbzOwbTYwrMMm05
CT1DTAZ+aHNTjBtqvyaPxG8t3lfu7ziMCZ3EvfqcKp4UTOljDUEzwCIkSEwVWt58w4y9
THW9wYlcKaqCzQ7C0QAe65bZH9IugKZ1/Zdr7ETxri3cEaYzoku1QYUlBemybbz8Vo4y
0c2n4QTaNLv1mWj/2KP5x1D3LCLrk8K59jUnoBNF73fRZiMRAWz38KzzQophe6TMFaWY
CWvw==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.140.33.227 with SMTP id j90mr35369925qgj.6.1436557154918;
Fri, 10 Jul 2015 12:39:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.140.93.162 with HTTP; Fri, 10 Jul 2015 12:39:14 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAPWm=eWH9rZpwJeK2tTdHH8+BWDU_Vam8oBtG0u49v2yZuYVfw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <6D3AACE5-D6CD-4785-8A55-F6DF0B94D927@ricmoo.com>
<CAE-z3OV+-18VLbOfWzDnE5HWJ4436HGtC_qDFFVkFQTGyjGOVw@mail.gmail.com>
<CADm_WcYQLzqQLY-Dspd1jUtF9Z=_721TReoc_eKYk5JCQ4fejg@mail.gmail.com>
<559FFAB3.2010309@openbitcoinprivacyproject.org>
<CAPWm=eWH9rZpwJeK2tTdHH8+BWDU_Vam8oBtG0u49v2yZuYVfw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2015 20:39:14 +0100
Message-ID: <CAE-z3OWMpCW51FjwT8409k_10Uj9Zq=H8AVUo5B6PfYBTQ_Axg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Tier Nolan <tier.nolan@gmail.com>
Cc: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113a7d02eb2eb7051a8a8653
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,
DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,HTML_MESSAGE,MISSING_HEADERS,
RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=no version=3.3.1
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
smtp1.linux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Why not Child-Pays-For-Parent?
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: Fri, 10 Jul 2015 19:39:16 -0000
--001a113a7d02eb2eb7051a8a8653
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
It depends on what kind of inefficiency. Inefficient could mean that it
uses a lot of CPU power.
If it gets a good solution rather than the best solution, it is still worth
having.
On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 6:51 PM, Alex Morcos <morcos@gmail.com> wrote:
> I think the biggest problem with merging CPFP right now is that at least
> in its current implementation it is not efficient enough in certain
> situations,.
>
--001a113a7d02eb2eb7051a8a8653
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<div dir=3D"ltr"><div>It depends on what kind of inefficiency.=C2=A0 Ineffi=
cient could mean that it uses a lot of CPU power.=C2=A0 <br><br></div>If it=
gets a good solution rather than the best solution, it is still worth havi=
ng.<br><div><div><div><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><div class=3D"gmail_qu=
ote">On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 6:51 PM, Alex Morcos <span dir=3D"ltr"><<a =
href=3D"mailto:morcos@gmail.com" target=3D"_blank">morcos@gmail.com</a>>=
</span> wrote:<br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .=
8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr">I think t=
he biggest problem with merging CPFP right now is that at least in its curr=
ent implementation it is not efficient enough in certain situations,.</div>=
</blockquote></div></div></div></div></div></div>
--001a113a7d02eb2eb7051a8a8653--
|
