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
|
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 2AD675AA
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sun, 24 Dec 2017 07:22:01 +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 9A1FBE0
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sun, 24 Dec 2017 07:22:00 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from ishibashi.localnet (unknown [IPv6:2001:470:5:265::71])
(Authenticated sender: luke-jr)
by zinan.dashjr.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 1C6E738A0068;
Sun, 24 Dec 2017 07:21:42 +0000 (UTC)
X-Hashcash: 1:25:171224:willtech@live.com.au::Z3c=5k6u=JISrGLU:7D5j
X-Hashcash: 1:25:171224:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org::+jh3fqdyUMmZN=9G:SZLz
From: Luke Dashjr <luke@dashjr.org>
To: Damian Williamson <willtech@live.com.au>
Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2017 07:21:24 +0000
User-Agent: KMail/1.13.7 (Linux/4.12.12-gentoo; KDE/4.14.37; x86_64; ; )
References: <PS2P216MB0179FE1CAF04AB860A5F36719D000@PS2P216MB0179.KORP216.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
In-Reply-To: <PS2P216MB0179FE1CAF04AB860A5F36719D000@PS2P216MB0179.KORP216.PROD.OUTLOOK.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="iso-8859-15"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <201712240721.24971.luke@dashjr.org>
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED,
T_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@lists.linuxfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP 177: UTPFOTIB - Use Transaction Priority For
Ordering Transactions In Blocks
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol 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: Sun, 24 Dec 2017 07:22:01 -0000
BIP 177 is NOT assigned. Do not self-assign BIP numbers!
Please read BIP 2:
https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0002.mediawiki
Luke
On Sunday 24 December 2017 2:57:38 AM Damian Williamson via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> BIP 177: UTPFOTIB - Use Transaction Priority For Ordering Transactions In
> Blocks
>
>
> This BIP proposes to address the issue of transactional reliability in
> Bitcoin, where valid transactions may be stuck in the mempool for extended
> periods.
>
>
> There are two key issues to be resolved:
>
>
> 1. The current transaction bandwidth limit.
> 2. The current ad-hoc methods of including transactions in blocks
> resulting in variable and confusing confirmation times for valid
> transactions, including transactions with a valid fee that may never
> confirm.
>
>
> It is important with any change to protect the value of fees as these will
> eventually be the only payment that miners receive. Rather than an auction
> model for limited bandwidth, the proposal results in a stable fee for
> priority service auction model.
>
>
> I will post the full proposal up on to my blog in the coming days and,
> re-review incorporating feedback that I have received on and off thread.
> It would not be true to suggest that all feedback received has been
> entirely positive although, most of it has been constructive.
>
>
> The previous threads for this BIP are available here:
>
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2017-December/subje
> ct.html
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Damian Williamson
|
