Luke Dashjr [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2015-11-12 📝 Original message:On Thursday, November 12, ...

📅 Original date posted:2015-11-12
📝 Original message:On Thursday, November 12, 2015 8:43:17 PM Jorge Timón wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 9:12 PM, Luke Dashjr via bitcoin-dev
> <bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> > On Thursday, November 12, 2015 7:47:50 PM Matt Corallo via bitcoin-dev
> > wrote:
> >> * Mining code will use starting priority for ease of implementation
> >
> > This should be optional, at least for 0.12.
>
> The ease of implementation is not gained if it's maintained optionally.

It has come to my attention maintaining the current priority algorithm is not
even expensive, so I think I'm inclined to NACK using starting priority
altogether. Since I am the mining maintainer for Core, I believe it's
reasonable for me to decide on maintenance tradeoffs...

Therefore, my goal in this matter will be to review #6357 in depth to be
merged, and follow up with #6898 based on the current default policies.

> >> * Default block priority size will be 0
> >
> > We should not be influencing miner policy by changing defaults.
>
> I agree changing policy defaults is meaningless, but in this case it
> is supposed to signal deprecation of the policy option.

This is a bad idea anyway, since priority is the best metric we have right now
for ensuring legitimate transactions get mined despite spam attacks.

Luke