ck the revised proposal to the list. I have fleshed parts of
> it out more, given more explanation and, tried this time not to recycle
> terminology.
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Damian Williamson
> ------------------
> *From:* ZmnSCPxj <zmnsc...@protonmail.com>
> *
on.org
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP Proposal: UTWFOTIB - Use Transaction Weight For
Ordering Transactions In Blocks
Good morning ZmnSCPxj, it must be where you are,
I suppose that we are each missing each other's point some.
I understand that nodes would not be expected to agree on the trans
iamson
Cc: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP Proposal: UTWFOTIB - Use Transaction Weight For
Ordering Transactions In Blocks
Good morning Damian,
>As I understand it, each node would be aware independently of x transactions
>waiting for confirmation, the
ation.org>
Sent: Wednesday, 6 December 2017 4:18:11 PM
To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP Proposal: UTWFOTIB - Use Transaction Weight For
Ordering Transactions In Blocks
As i understand it, the transactions to be included in a block are entirely up
Good morning Damian,
>As I understand it, each node would be aware independently of x transactions
>waiting for confirmation, the transaction pool.
Each long-running node would have a view that is roughly the same as the view
of every other long-running node.
However, suppose a node, Sleeping
As i understand it, the transactions to be included in a block are
entirely up to the miner of that block.
What prevents a miner from implementing the proposal on their own?
If this is adopted as some kind of "policy", what forces a miner to
follow it?
Jim Renkel
On 12/2/2017 10:07 PM,
nsc...@protonmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, 6 December 2017 4:46:45 PM
To: Damian Williamson
Cc: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP Proposal: UTWFOTIB - Use Transaction Weight For
Ordering Transactions In Blocks
Good morning Damian,
The primary problem in your pr
Good morning Damian,
The primary problem in your proposal, as I understand it, is that the
"transaction pool" is never committed to and is not part of consensus
currently. It is unlikely that the transaction pool will ever be part of
consensus, as putting the transaction pool into consensus
