Aaron Voisine [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2015-06-12 📝 Original message:One possible solution that ...
📅 Original date posted:2015-06-12
📝 Original message:One possible solution that wallets could adopt when blocks fill up, would
be to abandon the p2p network for transaction propagation altogether, and
instead work directly with a handful of the largest miners and pools to get
transactions into blocks. The miners could auction off space in their
blocks with the guarantee that they will be included in the order accepted.
We'd lose the peer-to-peer nature of sending transactions for a federated
service operator style model, but avoid the problem of unpredictable
transaction failure. Also, unlike replace-by-fee, this would allow for
a send-and-forget usage pattern, as well as known up-front fees. Something
like this is certainly what I imagine the large hosted wallet companies
will end up moving to.
Aaron
On Thursday, June 11, 2015, Mike Hearn <mike at plan99.net> wrote:
> > Re: "dropped in an unpredictable way" - transactions would be dropped
>> > lowest fee/KB first, a completely predictable way.
>>
>> Quite agreed.
>
>
> No, Aaron is correct. It's unpredictable from the perspective of the user
> sending the transaction, and as they are the ones picking the fees, that is
> what matters.
>
--
Aaron Voisine
co-founder and CEO
breadwallet.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150611/18a6e3a1/attachment.html>;
📝 Original message:One possible solution that wallets could adopt when blocks fill up, would
be to abandon the p2p network for transaction propagation altogether, and
instead work directly with a handful of the largest miners and pools to get
transactions into blocks. The miners could auction off space in their
blocks with the guarantee that they will be included in the order accepted.
We'd lose the peer-to-peer nature of sending transactions for a federated
service operator style model, but avoid the problem of unpredictable
transaction failure. Also, unlike replace-by-fee, this would allow for
a send-and-forget usage pattern, as well as known up-front fees. Something
like this is certainly what I imagine the large hosted wallet companies
will end up moving to.
Aaron
On Thursday, June 11, 2015, Mike Hearn <mike at plan99.net> wrote:
> > Re: "dropped in an unpredictable way" - transactions would be dropped
>> > lowest fee/KB first, a completely predictable way.
>>
>> Quite agreed.
>
>
> No, Aaron is correct. It's unpredictable from the perspective of the user
> sending the transaction, and as they are the ones picking the fees, that is
> what matters.
>
--
Aaron Voisine
co-founder and CEO
breadwallet.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150611/18a6e3a1/attachment.html>;