Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
	designates 209.85.213.49 as permitted sender)
	client-ip=209.85.213.49; envelope-from=gavinandresen@gmail.com;
	helo=mail-yh0-f49.google.com; 
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAPWm=eX0MMBOPvugETxq+pyDzZ00xc90hZAJe8qgg4Shftm-9w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAPWm=eXxs=AfFhaT2EeGFsR+2r96WcaOeWL_Z59-6LixH+=4AQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CABsx9T35NdEkFmdVDX19gOO1p0h1M_ZDK1iXxTFNLHE9dtC3hQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAPWm=eX0MMBOPvugETxq+pyDzZ00xc90hZAJe8qgg4Shftm-9w@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2014 10:58:36 -0400
Message-ID: <CABsx9T2ET_Guoa8J-9irjwOo7vN+9Y3TyEUhdDBWxaYKV1J95w@mail.gmail.com>
From: Gavin Andresen <gavinandresen@gmail.com>
To: Alex Morcos <morcos@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b604d10bdbbd405067ce144
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Reworking the policy estimation code (fee
	estimates)
Precedence: list

--047d7b604d10bdbbd405067ce144
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 10:30 AM, Alex Morcos <morcos@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Do you think it would make sense to make that 90% number an argument to
> rpc call?  For instance there could be a default (I would use 80%) but then
> you could specify if you required a different certainty.  It wouldn't
> require any code changes and might make it easier for people to build more
> complicated logic on top of it.
>

RE: 80% versus 90% :  I think a default of 80% will get us a lot of "the
fee estimation logic is broken, I want my transactions to confirm quick and
a lot of them aren't confirming for 2 or 3 blocks."

RE: RPC argument:  I'm reluctant to give too many 'knobs' for the RPC
interface. I think the default percentage makes sense as a
command-line/bitcoin.conf option; I can imagine services that want to save
on fees running with -estimatefeethreshold=0.5  (or
-estimatefeethreshold=0.95 if as-fast-as-possible confirmations are
needed). Setting both the number of confirmations and the estimation
threshold on a transaction-by-transaction basis seems like overkill to me.

-- 
--
Gavin Andresen

--047d7b604d10bdbbd405067ce144
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On T=
ue, Oct 28, 2014 at 10:30 AM, Alex Morcos <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=3D"=
mailto:morcos@gmail.com" target=3D"_blank">morcos@gmail.com</a>&gt;</span> =
wrote:<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-l=
eft:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div>Do you think it =
would make sense to make that 90% number an argument to rpc call?=A0 For in=
stance there could be a default (I would use 80%) but then you could specif=
y if you required a different certainty.=A0 It wouldn&#39;t require any cod=
e changes and might make it easier for people to build more complicated log=
ic on top of it.</div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>RE: 80% versus=
 90% : =A0I think a default of 80% will get us a lot of &quot;the fee estim=
ation logic is broken, I want my transactions to confirm quick and a lot of=
 them aren&#39;t confirming for 2 or 3 blocks.&quot;</div><div><br></div><d=
iv>RE: RPC argument: =A0I&#39;m reluctant to give too many &#39;knobs&#39; =
for the RPC interface. I think the default percentage makes sense as a comm=
and-line/bitcoin.conf option; I can imagine services that want to save on f=
ees running with -estimatefeethreshold=3D0.5 =A0(or -estimatefeethreshold=
=3D0.95 if as-fast-as-possible confirmations are needed). Setting both the =
number of confirmations and the estimation threshold on a transaction-by-tr=
ansaction basis seems like overkill to me.</div></div><div><br></div>-- <br=
>--<br>Gavin Andresen<br>
</div></div>

--047d7b604d10bdbbd405067ce144--