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
|
Return-Path: <bip@mattwhitlock.name>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0457FBB6
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sun, 12 Jul 2015 10:18:51 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from resqmta-po-10v.sys.comcast.net (resqmta-po-10v.sys.comcast.net
[96.114.154.169])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A5537E9
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sun, 12 Jul 2015 10:18:50 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from resomta-po-03v.sys.comcast.net ([96.114.154.227])
by resqmta-po-10v.sys.comcast.net with comcast
id rNJp1q0014ueUHc01NJpqb; Sun, 12 Jul 2015 10:18:49 +0000
Received: from crushinator.localnet
([IPv6:2601:186:c000:825e:e9f4:8901:87c7:24a0])
by resomta-po-03v.sys.comcast.net with comcast
id rNJn1q00A4eLRLv01NJppR; Sun, 12 Jul 2015 10:18:49 +0000
From: Matt Whitlock <bip@mattwhitlock.name>
To: Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 12 Jul 2015 06:18:47 -0400
Message-ID: <4773632.c9JArRaIev@crushinator>
User-Agent: KMail/4.14.10 (Linux/4.0.5-gentoo; KDE/4.14.10; x86_64; ; )
In-Reply-To: <CADm_Wcaed61oWMGu_FVCeRUWOS6jfFvGwNGEwh9GymfrqgtQKQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <6D3AACE5-D6CD-4785-8A55-F6DF0B94D927@ricmoo.com>
<CAAUFj12JC1e7wY1M-_U_Kh5wQv8V4X0SeGGtONn7m8PcOEhp_Q@mail.gmail.com>
<CADm_Wcaed61oWMGu_FVCeRUWOS6jfFvGwNGEwh9GymfrqgtQKQ@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE
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] Why not Child-Pays-For-Parent?
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Bitcoin Development 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, 12 Jul 2015 10:18:51 -0000
I keep seeing (on /r/bitcoin) mentions of a 24-hour or 48-hour (varying accounts) interval at which miners clear their mempools. Is this a matter of local policy or something Bitcoin Core does by design?
On Saturday, 11 July 2015, at 5:29 pm, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> It sounds like you are seeking transaction expiration from the mempool, not
> CPFP.
>
> On Sat, Jul 11, 2015 at 4:30 PM, Dan Bryant <dkbryant@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I think a compromise will be somewhere in the middle. I think most people
> > would be OK with TXs that don't have enough fees for P2P transfer to stay
> > in deadmans land. Most people are stuck in a situation where they payed
> > enough to get it into (and keep it in) the pool, but not enough to get it
> > out.
> >
> > If we could get CPFP that only worked on TXs that met the minimum
> > threshold for peer propagation, then I think we would be in much better
> > position to battle this spam flood.
> >
> > On Sat, Jul 11, 2015 at 3:28 PM, Micha Bailey <michabailey@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Right. The issue (AIUI) is that, right now, even though transactions are
> >> evaluated for inclusion as a group with CPFP, they're not yet evaluated for
> >> relaying as a unit, nor can they be, because the current p2p protocol
> >> doesn't have a way to send multiple transactions in a single protocol
> >> message to signify that they should be evaluated together.
|
