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@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@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
