📅 Original date posted:2015-11-12 📝 Original message:I doubt changing the ...

Chun Wang [ARCHIVE] /

npub1edz…qjxc

2023-06-07 17:44:32

in reply to nevent1q…v7vm

📅 Original date posted:2015-11-12
📝 Original message: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 at 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 at lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev

Author Public Key

npub1edz8qyleqfqddckyjs0erkqysv2n76fwatw32nehpm5k7gertf4shmqjxc

Seen on

wss://relay.nostr.band

Show more details

Published at

2023-06-07 17:44:32

Kind type

1 Short Text Note

Event JSON

{ "id": "5465333b58cc31c8090ba1cde939e498df33e9e55a303f570aa7a82209d6963b", "pubkey": "cb447013f90240d6e2c4941f91d80483153f692eeadd154f370ee96f23235a6b", "created_at": 1686159872, "kind": 1, "tags": [ [ "e", "c59f6dff72c8db0bd6ddda0f45c2ffa7c951b2b6ab43fd7de238298ff1dc7029", "", "root" ], [ "e", "67f21c4eac1870a1191110b51b53f76e09e291a2c8b73ebcb7a04163f0310720", "", "reply" ], [ "p", "5a6d1f44482b67b5b0d30cc1e829b66a251f0dc99448377dbe3c5e0faf6c3803" ] ], "content": "📅 Original date posted:2015-11-12\n📝 Original message:I doubt changing the default value is useful as casual mining had long\ndead, and pools all have their own customized policies. But I think\nchange the priority size to 0 is the right way to do. The sort by\npriority part in the block is always the best place for spam nowadays.\nI would think about to merge the priority, feerate, and probably\nsigoprate into one number, probably 576 priorities trade for 1 satoshi\nper kb?\n\nOn Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 4:12 AM, Luke Dashjr via bitcoin-dev\n\u003cbitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e wrote:\n\u003e On Thursday, November 12, 2015 7:47:50 PM Matt Corallo via bitcoin-dev wrote:\n\u003e\u003e With the mempool limiting stuff already in git master, high-priority\n\u003e\u003e relay is disabled when mempools are full. In addition, there was\n\u003e\u003e agreement to take the following steps for 0.12:\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e * Mining code will use starting priority for ease of implementation\n\u003e\n\u003e This should be optional, at least for 0.12.\n\u003e\n\u003e\u003e * Default block priority size will be 0\n\u003e\n\u003e We should not be influencing miner policy by changing defaults.\n\u003e\n\u003e Luke\n\u003e _______________________________________________\n\u003e bitcoin-dev mailing list\n\u003e bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\n\u003e https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev", "sig": "678838f563b4bb5afa3fd898b985dbd74571de27293763312d62d9a6d8418b0083e0d1be379fdb159a77f7cdb15d109f8bd69c7b14168474b0598719cb630238" }