It sounds like you are seeking transaction expiration from the mempool, not CPFP.
On Sat, Jul 11, 2015 at 4:30 PM, Dan Bryant <[email protected]> wrote: > I think a compromise will be somewhere in the middle. I think most people > would be OK with TXs that don't have enough fees for P2P transfer to stay > in deadmans land. Most people are stuck in a situation where they payed > enough to get it into (and keep it in) the pool, but not enough to get it > out. > > If we could get CPFP that only worked on TXs that met the minimum > threshold for peer propagation, then I think we would be in much better > position to battle this spam flood. > > On Sat, Jul 11, 2015 at 3:28 PM, Micha Bailey <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Right. The issue (AIUI) is that, right now, even though transactions are >> evaluated for inclusion as a group with CPFP, they're not yet evaluated for >> relaying as a unit, nor can they be, because the current p2p protocol >> doesn't have a way to send multiple transactions in a single protocol >> message to signify that they should be evaluated together. >> >> > > > _______________________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev > >
_______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
