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
|
Return-Path: <aj@erisian.com.au>
Received: from smtp4.osuosl.org (smtp4.osuosl.org [IPv6:2605:bc80:3010::137])
by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A2303C002D
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Tue, 24 May 2022 19:48:16 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by smtp4.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8382741A5C
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Tue, 24 May 2022 19:48:16 +0000 (UTC)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.902
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.902 tagged_above=-999 required=5
tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001]
autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from smtp4.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1])
by localhost (smtp4.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
with ESMTP id ZNAi5s26krEC
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Tue, 24 May 2022 19:48:15 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0
Received: from azure.erisian.com.au (azure.erisian.com.au [172.104.61.193])
by smtp4.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 23E36419EC
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Tue, 24 May 2022 19:48:15 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from aj@azure.erisian.com.au (helo=[127.0.0.1])
by azure.erisian.com.au with esmtpsa (Exim 4.92 #3 (Debian))
id 1ntaVk-0001ea-NX; Wed, 25 May 2022 05:48:12 +1000
Date: Tue, 24 May 2022 15:48:02 -0400
From: Anthony Towns <aj@erisian.com.au>
To: Gloria Zhao <gloriajzhao@gmail.com>,
Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
User-Agent: K-9 Mail for Android
In-Reply-To: <CAFXO6=KXToP2MFWQ1JVKX6jV++utw8E4Z13T4cH+mfgtyeUx_A@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAFXO6=JROe_9ih2h+_CCH-UbxehsM5RQ6YyNnPesEpveBEtdow@mail.gmail.com>
<20220518003531.GA4402@erisian.com.au>
<CAFXO6=LWM4eHM=zJhejw5981+8h7QHTbwpz0jEbWkrLOX0037Q@mail.gmail.com>
<20220523213416.GA6151@erisian.com.au>
<CAFXO6=KXToP2MFWQ1JVKX6jV++utw8E4Z13T4cH+mfgtyeUx_A@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <2B3D1901-901C-4000-A2B9-F6857FCE2847@erisian.com.au>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Spam-Score-int: -28
X-Spam-Bar: --
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Package Relay Proposal
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Tue, 24 May 2022 19:48:16 -0000
On 23 May 2022 9:13:43 pm GMT-04:00, Gloria Zhao <gloriajzhao@gmail=2Ecom> =
wrote:
>> If you're asking for the package for "D", would a response telling you:
>> txid_D (500 sat, 100vB)
>> txid_A (0 sat, 100vB)
>> txid_B (2000 sat, 100 vB)
>> be better, in that case? Then the receiver can maybe do the logic
>> themselves to figure out that they already have A in their mempool
>> so it's fine, or not?
>Right, I also considered giving the fees and sizes of each transaction in
>the package in =E2=80=9Cpckginfo1=E2=80=9D=2E But I don=E2=80=99t think t=
hat information provides
>additional meaning unless you know the exact topology, i=2Ee=2E also know=
if
>the parents have dependency relationships between them=2E For instance, i=
n
>the {A, B, D} package there, even if you have the information listed, you=
r
>decision should be different depending on whether B spends from A=2E
I don't think that's true? We already know D is above our fee floor so if =
B with A is also above the floor, we want them all, but also if B isn't abo=
ve the floor, but all of them combined are, then we also do?
If you've got (A,B,C,X) where B spends A and X spends A,B,C where X+C is b=
elow fee floor while A+B and A+B+C+X are above fee floor you have the probl=
em though=2E
Is it plausible to add the graph in?
Cheers,
aj
--=20
Sent from my phone=2E
|
