On 7/16/2015 2:38 AM, Thomas Zander via bitcoin-dev wrote:
On Wednesday 15. July 2015 16.15.24 Tom Harding via bitcoin-dev wrote:
On 7/15/2015 12:18 PM, Thomas Zander via bitcoin-dev wrote:
On Tuesday 14. July 2015 17.24.23 Tom Harding via bitcoin-dev wrote:
Rule 2: A transaction and its dependents are evicted on its 2-hour
anniversary, whether space is required or not
Instead of 2 hours, why not a number of blocks?
So users/wallets can know when they should rebroadcast and consider
increasing the fee.
Using 12 blocks, there is a 5% chance he has to wait 3 hours.*
Using 120 minutes, there is only a .23% chance that fewer than 4 blocks
have occurred.**
Using the good old saying; results in the past are no indication of the
future.
I see a logic error in your thinking.
Your assumption that time is a better indicator is false. Naturally time
itself is universal, but blocks are known by wallets too. Its just as good.
This assumption of yours leans heavily on block mining times, and that is
not guaranteed in the future. Imagine one day half the miners dropping and
blocks take much longer for a week or so. Your assumptions just broke the
mempool.
It's not a question of right vs. wrong. Either method has consequences
for user expectations and behavior.
With fixed-block mempool expiration, the expiration time is variable.
User can get an alert, but at an unpredictable time.
With fixed-timeout, the likelihood of expiration is more variable
(expiration occurrence is unpredictable regardless), but any expiration
will occur at the timeout.
_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
