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
|
Return-Path: <1240902@gmail.com>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BFEA0943
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Thu, 12 Nov 2015 20:20:46 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-ig0-f170.google.com (mail-ig0-f170.google.com
[209.85.213.170])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 44DE41C7
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Thu, 12 Nov 2015 20:20:46 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by igbhv6 with SMTP id hv6so1510724igb.0
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Thu, 12 Nov 2015 12:20:45 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to
:cc:content-type;
bh=CuZFb0C8g/SmcHOflRqXc3oQjcJ4yJoe8Qrhs7olkqg=;
b=DVsqJKuSc8t+YcmF5XtnYVr+pxI7qNAnvBlKgd5epkRM07CEJgCtKCG7RDegBaB/BV
ChXb7LILlLVG4OWozJ5KW7hzTGylb+neTkqEE7sDiW3hoLIZLbnuZDnTos6Vqdvy0EBv
E7SWBj3ik98olGbKUDLQaOwF0VDOurQZjYDWSFfgWvX3YjcPmjaelon8z7P36MzDJy77
/SHP+u3OhnacVZylpOOXJFMzm0pi6O8ixmbjHuDNXQH/dQaPizi4gs9woO+CGjGcdEJX
4QHScMF+QQ2iwBlcVSs3kxFy16PoJ6OjHLGEtBIj56N8PljQ5gZn24q7Ftr8+xNtDTBR
UUnw==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.50.160.2 with SMTP id xg2mr28589730igb.54.1447359645574;
Thu, 12 Nov 2015 12:20:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.107.4.138 with HTTP; Thu, 12 Nov 2015 12:20:45 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <201511122012.29966.luke@dashjr.org>
References: <5644ECE6.9090304@mattcorallo.com>
<201511122012.29966.luke@dashjr.org>
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 2015 04:20:45 +0800
Message-ID: <CAFzgq-xZA7VApQJv-b9n12H+GmL7u4Qv_481UsHWNqXGn6NubA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Chun Wang <1240902@gmail.com>
To: Luke Dashjr <luke@dashjr.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.4 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,
DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT,FREEMAIL_FROM,
RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=ham version=3.3.1
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
smtp1.linux-foundation.org
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 12 Nov 2015 20:22:58 +0000
Cc: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Upcoming Transaction Priority Changes
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: Thu, 12 Nov 2015 20:20:46 -0000
I doubt changing the default value is useful as casual mining had long
dead, and pools all have their own customized policies. But I think
change the priority size to 0 is the right way to do. The sort by
priority part in the block is always the best place for spam nowadays.
I would think about to merge the priority, feerate, and probably
sigoprate into one number, probably 576 priorities trade for 1 satoshi
per kb?
On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 4:12 AM, Luke Dashjr via bitcoin-dev
<bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> On Thursday, November 12, 2015 7:47:50 PM Matt Corallo via bitcoin-dev wrote:
>> With the mempool limiting stuff already in git master, high-priority
>> relay is disabled when mempools are full. In addition, there was
>> agreement to take the following steps for 0.12:
>>
>> * Mining code will use starting priority for ease of implementation
>
> This should be optional, at least for 0.12.
>
>> * Default block priority size will be 0
>
> We should not be influencing miner policy by changing defaults.
>
> Luke
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
|
