Peter Todd [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2013-10-26 📝 Original message:On Sat, Oct 26, 2013 at ...
📅 Original date posted:2013-10-26
📝 Original message:On Sat, Oct 26, 2013 at 10:25:06AM +1000, Gavin Andresen wrote:
> RE: lots of other comments:
>
> I feel like there is a lot of "in the weeds" discussion here about
> theoretical, what-if-this-and-that-happens-in-the-future scenarios.
Um... yeah. Note how I said on your original pull-req that I'd be happy
to see it merged once the bugs were fixed (95% of the transactions it
produced had zero fees even with zero priority txins for some reason)
and you added a lower bound on fees in the wallet code as a "do no harm"
measure.
In fact, I think I wasn't being conservative enough given that it
affects relaying of transactions. Instead add both lower and upper
bounds to what the wallet and relaying code uses for 0.9.0 and it'd
probably be safe to merge. We can get relax those "training wheels" in
0.9.1 or 0.9.2 once we've had some real-world experience with how the
estimation system works in practice, particularly for how it affects
relaying.
--
'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
00000000000000036253c7a02061121b6a12484278a3c472a22e47a821c28a69
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 685 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20131026/4477c3ab/attachment.sig>;
📝 Original message:On Sat, Oct 26, 2013 at 10:25:06AM +1000, Gavin Andresen wrote:
> RE: lots of other comments:
>
> I feel like there is a lot of "in the weeds" discussion here about
> theoretical, what-if-this-and-that-happens-in-the-future scenarios.
Um... yeah. Note how I said on your original pull-req that I'd be happy
to see it merged once the bugs were fixed (95% of the transactions it
produced had zero fees even with zero priority txins for some reason)
and you added a lower bound on fees in the wallet code as a "do no harm"
measure.
In fact, I think I wasn't being conservative enough given that it
affects relaying of transactions. Instead add both lower and upper
bounds to what the wallet and relaying code uses for 0.9.0 and it'd
probably be safe to merge. We can get relax those "training wheels" in
0.9.1 or 0.9.2 once we've had some real-world experience with how the
estimation system works in practice, particularly for how it affects
relaying.
--
'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
00000000000000036253c7a02061121b6a12484278a3c472a22e47a821c28a69
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 685 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20131026/4477c3ab/attachment.sig>;