Luke Dashjr [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2015-10-28 📝 Original message:On Wednesday, October 28, ...
📅 Original date posted:2015-10-28
📝 Original message:On Wednesday, October 28, 2015 4:26:52 AM Jonathan Toomim via bitcoin-dev
wrote:
> Assigning 5% of block space based on bitcoin-days destroyed (BDD) and the
> other 95% based on fees seems like a rather awkward approach to me. For
> one thing, it means two code paths in pretty much every procedure dealing
> with a constrained resource (e.g. mempool, CNB). This makes code harder
> two write, harder to maintain, and slower to execute.
This is all in the realm of node policy, which must be easy to
modify/customise in a flexible manner. So simplifying other code in a way that
makes the policy harder to configure is not a welcome change.
That is, by making the code simpler, if you make custom policies (such as the
current default) harder, it is better to leave the main code less simple.
Luke
📝 Original message:On Wednesday, October 28, 2015 4:26:52 AM Jonathan Toomim via bitcoin-dev
wrote:
> Assigning 5% of block space based on bitcoin-days destroyed (BDD) and the
> other 95% based on fees seems like a rather awkward approach to me. For
> one thing, it means two code paths in pretty much every procedure dealing
> with a constrained resource (e.g. mempool, CNB). This makes code harder
> two write, harder to maintain, and slower to execute.
This is all in the realm of node policy, which must be easy to
modify/customise in a flexible manner. So simplifying other code in a way that
makes the policy harder to configure is not a welcome change.
That is, by making the code simpler, if you make custom policies (such as the
current default) harder, it is better to leave the main code less simple.
Luke