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
|
Return-Path: <luke@dashjr.org>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8A29D941
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Thu, 12 Nov 2015 21:10:59 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from zinan.dashjr.org (zinan.dashjr.org [192.3.11.21])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2CA01128
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Thu, 12 Nov 2015 21:10:59 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from ishibashi.localnet (unknown
[IPv6:2001:470:5:265:61b6:56a6:b03d:28d6])
(Authenticated sender: luke-jr)
by zinan.dashjr.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 8146538A6E30;
Thu, 12 Nov 2015 21:10:48 +0000 (UTC)
X-Hashcash: 1:25:151112:jtimon@jtimon.cc::1ZKNeAzbzOuADRPL:QtLz
X-Hashcash: 1:25:151112:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org::U2z/8bmJchu=IZmH:of4y
X-Hashcash: 1:25:151112:lf-lists@mattcorallo.com::AqkYm2aTRl2aE0eJ:wPkm
From: Luke Dashjr <luke@dashjr.org>
To: Jorge =?utf-8?q?Tim=C3=B3n?= <jtimon@jtimon.cc>
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2015 21:10:45 +0000
User-Agent: KMail/1.13.7 (Linux/4.1.9-gentoo-r1; KDE/4.14.8; x86_64; ; )
References: <5644ECE6.9090304@mattcorallo.com>
<201511122012.29966.luke@dashjr.org>
<CABm2gDqnmR5eAEZj_CRJ6Q5gi8LM_chb3tBCt2=L9ojr+Ziadw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CABm2gDqnmR5eAEZj_CRJ6Q5gi8LM_chb3tBCt2=L9ojr+Ziadw@mail.gmail.com>
X-PGP-Key-Fingerprint: E463 A93F 5F31 17EE DE6C 7316 BD02 9424 21F4 889F
X-PGP-Key-ID: BD02942421F4889F
X-PGP-Keyserver: hkp://pgp.mit.edu
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain;
charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <201511122110.47665.luke@dashjr.org>
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD
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 <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Upcoming Transaction Priority Changes
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: Thu, 12 Nov 2015 21:10:59 -0000
On Thursday, November 12, 2015 8:43:17 PM Jorge Tim=C3=B3n wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 9:12 PM, Luke Dashjr via bitcoin-dev
> <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> > On Thursday, November 12, 2015 7:47:50 PM Matt Corallo via bitcoin-dev
> > wrote:
> >> * Mining code will use starting priority for ease of implementation
> >=20
> > This should be optional, at least for 0.12.
>=20
> The ease of implementation is not gained if it's maintained optionally.
It has come to my attention maintaining the current priority algorithm is n=
ot=20
even expensive, so I think I'm inclined to NACK using starting priority=20
altogether. Since I am the mining maintainer for Core, I believe it's=20
reasonable for me to decide on maintenance tradeoffs...
Therefore, my goal in this matter will be to review #6357 in depth to be=20
merged, and follow up with #6898 based on the current default policies.
> >> * Default block priority size will be 0
> >=20
> > We should not be influencing miner policy by changing defaults.
>=20
> I agree changing policy defaults is meaningless, but in this case it
> is supposed to signal deprecation of the policy option.
This is a bad idea anyway, since priority is the best metric we have right =
now=20
for ensuring legitimate transactions get mined despite spam attacks.
Luke
|
