Alex Morcos [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2015-11-12 📝 Original message:To be clear Luke, its not ...
📅 Original date posted:2015-11-12
📝 Original message:To be clear Luke, its not THAT complicated to maintain the mining policy,
but preserving the ability of people to place priority based transactions
in a limited mempool world is quite complicated. See recently closed
#6992.
I think the biggest issue with #6357 is being sure the logic doesn't break
in future changes. There are a lot of things that need to be updated in
the right order when blocks are connected or disconnected.
And whats the point of having even that added extra complication if its not
easy to place free transactions and starting priority is a decent
approximation for mining anyway (txs can just be rebroadcast in the worst
case).
On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 4:10 PM, Luke Dashjr via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20151112/e994acb0/attachment.html>;
📝 Original message:To be clear Luke, its not THAT complicated to maintain the mining policy,
but preserving the ability of people to place priority based transactions
in a limited mempool world is quite complicated. See recently closed
#6992.
I think the biggest issue with #6357 is being sure the logic doesn't break
in future changes. There are a lot of things that need to be updated in
the right order when blocks are connected or disconnected.
And whats the point of having even that added extra complication if its not
easy to place free transactions and starting priority is a decent
approximation for mining anyway (txs can just be rebroadcast in the worst
case).
On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 4:10 PM, Luke Dashjr via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20151112/e994acb0/attachment.html>;