Re: [bitcoin-dev] Upcoming Transaction Priority Changes

2015-11-12 Thread Luke Dashjr via bitcoin-dev
On Thursday, November 12, 2015 9:21:57 PM Alex Morcos wrote: > 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 t

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Upcoming Transaction Priority Changes

2015-11-12 Thread Alex Morcos via bitcoin-dev
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

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Upcoming Transaction Priority Changes

2015-11-12 Thread Luke Dashjr via bitcoin-dev
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 > 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 > >

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Upcoming Transaction Priority Changes

2015-11-12 Thread Jorge Timón via bitcoin-dev
On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 9:12 PM, Luke Dashjr via bitcoin-dev 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

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Upcoming Transaction Priority Changes

2015-11-12 Thread James Hilliard via bitcoin-dev
The priority space is causing major mempool bloating and GBT latency right now since many of the free transactions aren't getting mined and cleared out of the mempool anymore. From my testing setting minrelaytxfee=0.0001 is not enough to prevent the mempool from getting large during a spam attack,

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Upcoming Transaction Priority Changes

2015-11-12 Thread Luke Dashjr via bitcoin-dev
On Thursday, November 12, 2015 8:20:45 PM Chun Wang wrote: > The sort by priority part in the block is always the best place for spam > nowadays. What are you saying here? Spammers generally can't use the priority space at all, and it is a major way for legitimate users to get their transactions

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Upcoming Transaction Priority Changes

2015-11-12 Thread Chun Wang via bitcoin-dev
I doubt changing the default value is useful as casual mining had long dead, and pools all have their own customized policies. But I think change the priority size to 0 is the right way to do. The sort by priority part in the block is always the best place for spam nowadays. I would think about to

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Upcoming Transaction Priority Changes

2015-11-12 Thread Luke Dashjr via bitcoin-dev
On Thursday, November 12, 2015 7:47:50 PM Matt Corallo via bitcoin-dev wrote: > With the mempool limiting stuff already in git master, high-priority > relay is disabled when mempools are full. In addition, there was > agreement to take the following steps for 0.12: > > * Mining code will use star

[bitcoin-dev] Upcoming Transaction Priority Changes

2015-11-12 Thread Matt Corallo via bitcoin-dev
On the IRC meeting today there was a long discussion on how to handle the old "transaction priority" stuff in 0.12. Over time the "transaction priority" stuff has added a huge amount of code and taken a bunch of otherwise-useful developer effort. There is still some debate about its usefulness goin