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
|
Received: from sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.192]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-1.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <laanwj@gmail.com>) id 1W4pY8-0003zg-Qa
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Sun, 19 Jan 2014 10:24:16 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
designates 209.85.214.43 as permitted sender)
client-ip=209.85.214.43; envelope-from=laanwj@gmail.com;
helo=mail-bk0-f43.google.com;
Received: from mail-bk0-f43.google.com ([209.85.214.43])
by sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1W4pY6-0000wf-QI
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Sun, 19 Jan 2014 10:24:16 +0000
Received: by mail-bk0-f43.google.com with SMTP id mx11so668279bkb.30
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Sun, 19 Jan 2014 02:24:08 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.204.235.9 with SMTP id ke9mr2154473bkb.9.1390127048336; Sun,
19 Jan 2014 02:24:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.204.69.197 with HTTP; Sun, 19 Jan 2014 02:24:08 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CAJHLa0PAG=2+GOiLWYgWH81q+eAQ4w3LdDDemQ9J0K0AddUw_w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CA+s+GJBo7iUEJTfJw2e6qcDmdHNGdDN442Svs5ikVyUL1Jm0Wg@mail.gmail.com>
<201401161523.38623.luke@dashjr.org>
<CA+s+GJDeV9-djdEsA_stznNK9zzBA_0xQFV_m6tVygJicuLWuQ@mail.gmail.com>
<201401171841.37790.luke@dashjr.org>
<CAJHLa0MVY6f02hK1CofM7bjLM=V1V0XKCWvHjBz=ozQdvA+xYA@mail.gmail.com>
<61c05e986b4d1010d0cf76868db7d2af.squirrel@fruiteater.riseup.net>
<CA+s+GJCwB3Jj7z32_5NCHgf7utyx0nm-fXiSW+79w8u4mi7W5g@mail.gmail.com>
<52DABC0D.8060900@monetize.io>
<CAJHLa0PAG=2+GOiLWYgWH81q+eAQ4w3LdDDemQ9J0K0AddUw_w@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 19 Jan 2014 11:24:08 +0100
Message-ID: <CA+s+GJDFq0P+cgAVL9N1ADT7PFB4eMSPnoSR05wPOB5KRL-C+g@mail.gmail.com>
From: Wladimir <laanwj@gmail.com>
To: Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@bitpay.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=20cf30223997e8ce7504f0502c92
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
(laanwj[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: 1W4pY6-0000wf-QI
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Bitcoin Core 0.9rc1 release schedule
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: Sun, 19 Jan 2014 10:24:17 -0000
--20cf30223997e8ce7504f0502c92
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
On Sun, Jan 19, 2014 at 3:53 AM, Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@bitpay.com> wrote:
> There's a reason why luke-jr's pull request for CPfP remains open.
>
> There is general agreement that it appears to be useful. CPfP works
> to close the mismatch between how bitcoin transaction fees are
> attached by the sender, versus modern economic situations where the
> receiver is willing to pay a fee.
>
The only thing controversial are the code changes themselves, not the
feature.
Consensus running through the comments in the pull is that it needs
(auto)tests.
Are you going to do this Luke? Or is anyone else working on this?
Wladimir
--20cf30223997e8ce7504f0502c92
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<div dir=3D"ltr"><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On S=
un, Jan 19, 2014 at 3:53 AM, Jeff Garzik <span dir=3D"ltr"><<a href=3D"m=
ailto:jgarzik@bitpay.com" target=3D"_blank">jgarzik@bitpay.com</a>></spa=
n> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-=
left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;p=
adding-left:1ex">There's a reason why luke-jr's pull request for CP=
fP remains open.<br>
</blockquote><div>=C2=A0</div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"ma=
rgin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,=
204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
There is general agreement that it appears to be useful. =C2=A0CPfP works<b=
r>
to close the mismatch between how bitcoin transaction fees are<br>
attached by the sender, versus modern economic situations where the<br>
receiver is willing to pay a fee.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>The o=
nly thing controversial are the code changes themselves, not the feature.<b=
r></div><div><br></div><div>Consensus running through the comments in the p=
ull is that it needs (auto)tests.</div>
<div><br></div><div>Are you going to do this Luke? Or is anyone else workin=
g on this?</div><div><br></div><div>Wladimir</div><div><br></div></div></di=
v></div>
--20cf30223997e8ce7504f0502c92--
|
