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
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
|
Received: from sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.192]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-4.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <voisine@gmail.com>) id 1Z3IiC-0001kV-0N
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Fri, 12 Jun 2015 06:45:08 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
designates 209.85.192.41 as permitted sender)
client-ip=209.85.192.41; envelope-from=voisine@gmail.com;
helo=mail-qg0-f41.google.com;
Received: from mail-qg0-f41.google.com ([209.85.192.41])
by sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1Z3Ii7-0000Te-1L
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Fri, 12 Jun 2015 06:45:07 +0000
Received: by qgf75 with SMTP id 75so8791982qgf.1
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Thu, 11 Jun 2015 23:44:57 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.140.238.22 with SMTP id j22mr17122830qhc.98.1434091497611;
Thu, 11 Jun 2015 23:44:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.140.91.37 with HTTP; Thu, 11 Jun 2015 23:44:57 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CANEZrP2MiU8=sUXqAAjoJtkcdu4oAKmqVxM3ERz_fuknzWGiiw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAFdHNGgtgWGu8gnnJfM0EcVn2m_Wff5HPwAe-9FBvjR++q0Q-Q@mail.gmail.com>
<CANEZrP3+jW3BO=Zv41CGubJL7bSZ==o=Wp83K6Q0xL4PP+0ZUQ@mail.gmail.com>
<CACq0ZD6Qr7F7_20Nfd0a8TTHEVMR0fxu-T5bO4FfN1Lp9PcGDQ@mail.gmail.com>
<20150611131048.GA24053@savin.petertodd.org>
<5579C0FE.8080701@thinlink.com>
<CANEZrP2MiU8=sUXqAAjoJtkcdu4oAKmqVxM3ERz_fuknzWGiiw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2015 23:44:57 -0700
Message-ID: <CACq0ZD4wEBDKV8WtEsZJ54hxA9UP+T2N0g-7cxmgynZK+yaMxA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Aaron Voisine <voisine@gmail.com>
To: Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113594ee4a696505184c72c9
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
(voisine[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: 1Z3Ii7-0000Te-1L
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Proposal: SPV Fee Discovery mechanism
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: Fri, 12 Jun 2015 06:45:08 -0000
--001a113594ee4a696505184c72c9
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
One possible solution that wallets could adopt when blocks fill up, would
be to abandon the p2p network for transaction propagation altogether, and
instead work directly with a handful of the largest miners and pools to get
transactions into blocks. The miners could auction off space in their
blocks with the guarantee that they will be included in the order accepted.
We'd lose the peer-to-peer nature of sending transactions for a federated
service operator style model, but avoid the problem of unpredictable
transaction failure. Also, unlike replace-by-fee, this would allow for
a send-and-forget usage pattern, as well as known up-front fees. Something
like this is certainly what I imagine the large hosted wallet companies
will end up moving to.
Aaron
On Thursday, June 11, 2015, Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net> wrote:
> > Re: "dropped in an unpredictable way" - transactions would be dropped
>> > lowest fee/KB first, a completely predictable way.
>>
>> Quite agreed.
>
>
> No, Aaron is correct. It's unpredictable from the perspective of the user
> sending the transaction, and as they are the ones picking the fees, that is
> what matters.
>
--
Aaron Voisine
co-founder and CEO
breadwallet.com
--001a113594ee4a696505184c72c9
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
One possible solution that wallets could adopt when blocks fill up,=C2=A0wo=
uld be to abandon the p2p network for transaction=C2=A0propagation altogeth=
er, and instead work directly with a handful of the largest miners and pool=
s to get transactions into blocks. The miners could auction off space in th=
eir blocks with the guarantee that they=C2=A0will be included in the order =
accepted. We'd lose the peer-to-peer nature of sending transactions for=
a federated service operator style model, but=C2=A0avoid the problem of=C2=
=A0unpredictable transaction failure.=C2=A0Also, unlike replace-by-fee, thi=
s would allow for a=C2=A0send-and-forget usage pattern, as well as=C2=A0kno=
wn up-front fees. Something like this is certainly what I=C2=A0imagine the =
large=C2=A0hosted wallet companies will end up=C2=A0moving to.<div><br></di=
v><div>Aaron</div><div><span></span><br>On Thursday, June 11, 2015, Mike He=
arn <<a href=3D"mailto:mike@plan99.net">mike@plan99.net</a>> wrote:<b=
r><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:=
1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div class=3D"gmail_extra=
"><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"mar=
gin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><span>> Re: =
"dropped in an unpredictable way" - transactions would be dropped=
<br>
> lowest fee/KB first, a completely predictable way.<br>
<br>
</span>Quite agreed.=C2=A0 </blockquote><div><br></div><div>No, Aaron is co=
rrect. It's unpredictable from the perspective of the user sending the =
transaction, and as they are the ones picking the fees, that is what matter=
s.</div></div></div></div>
</blockquote></div><br><br>-- <br><div dir=3D"ltr"><div><div dir=3D"ltr"><d=
iv><br>Aaron Voisine</div><div>co-founder and CEO<br><a href=3D"http://brea=
dwallet.com" target=3D"_blank">breadwallet.com</a></div></div></div></div><=
br>
--001a113594ee4a696505184c72c9--
|
