MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <trinity-9a1b0170-a250-4c06-a8e1-0f281499c4da-1554627046019@3c-app-gmx-bs53>
In-Reply-To: <trinity-9a1b0170-a250-4c06-a8e1-0f281499c4da-1554627046019@3c-app-gmx-bs53>
From: Bernd Jendrissek <bitcoin@bpj-code.co.za>
Date: Mon, 8 Apr 2019 00:11:55 +0200
Message-ID: <CAF7PVPrXg2nefBkPH6E1Qz8hvL8JVSn-mCRCK60TtY1NjA-z3w@mail.gmail.com>
To: simondev1 <random@gmx.ch>, 
	Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] new BIP: Self balancing between excessively
 low/high fees and block size
Precedence: list

On Sun, 7 Apr 2019 at 17:45, simondev1 via bitcoin-dev
<bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> ==Implementation==
> Sort transactions by FeeInSatoshiPerByte (lowest first)
> For each transaction starting from lowest FeeInSatoshiPerByte: Sum up the bytes of space used so far. Check if summed up bytes of space used so far is smaller or equal than the formula result.
> If this is valid for each transaction then the blocksize is valid.

Doesn't this break CPFP? I think to avoid that you'll need to rework
your proposed algorithm to treat chains of transactions as a group.
(And note that you could have multiple transactions in one block that
depend on the same "parent" transaction, also in the same block.)