> -Original Message-
> From: Anthony Towns
> Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Packaged Transaction Relay
> > > > > > Protocol cannot be defined on an ad-hoc basis as a "courtesy"
> > > > > BIPs are a courtesy in the first place.
>
On Sun, Oct 09, 2022 at 12:00:04AM -0700, e...@voskuil.org wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 08, 2022, Anthony Towns via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> > > > > Protocol cannot be defined on an ad-hoc basis as a "courtesy"
> > > > BIPs are a courtesy in the first place.
> > > I suppose if you felt that you were the
On Sat, Oct 08, 2022, Anthony Towns via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> > > > Protocol cannot be defined on an ad-hoc basis as a "courtesy"
> > > BIPs are a courtesy in the first place.
> > I suppose if you felt that you were the authority then this would be
> > your perspective.
>
> You seem to think that
On Sat, Oct 08, 2022 at 12:58:35PM -0700, Eric Voskuil via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> > > Protocol cannot be defined on an ad-hoc basis as a "courtesy"
> > BIPs are a courtesy in the first place.
> I suppose if you felt that you were the authority then this would be your
> perspective.
You seem to
> From: Anthony Towns
> On Wed, Oct 05, 2022 at 09:32:29PM -0700, Eric Voskuil via bitcoin-dev
wrote:
> > Protocol cannot be defined on an ad-hoc basis as a "courtesy"
>
> BIPs are a courtesy in the first place.
I suppose if you felt that you were the authority then this would be your
On Wed, Oct 05, 2022 at 09:32:29PM -0700, Eric Voskuil via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> Protocol cannot be defined on an ad-hoc basis as a "courtesy"
BIPs are a courtesy in the first place. There's no central authority to
enforce some particular way of doing things.
> - and it's not exactly a courtesy
>> ...sendaddrv2 messages are only sent to nodes advertising version 70016 or
>> later (same as wtxidrelay)
> I don’t see this constraint in BIP155. Do you mean that addrv2 support was
> released in Core at the same time as wtxidrelay, or that it is an
> undocumented version constraint
>> [Regarding bandwidth waste: I've pointed out in years past that
>> breaking the Bitcoin versioning scheme creates a requirement that any
>> unknown message type be considered valid. Up until a recently-deployed
>> protocol change, it had always been possible to validate messages by
>> type. I
On Tue, Oct 04, 2022 at 05:01:04PM -0700, Eric Voskuil via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> [Regarding bandwidth waste: I've pointed out in years past that
> breaking the Bitcoin versioning scheme creates a requirement that any
> unknown message type be considered valid. Up until a recently-deployed
>
> Hi,
>
> Thanks for sharing your thoughts on packaged transaction relay.
Hello, thanks for the reply.
>> The sole objective, as expressed in the OP proposal, is to:
>> "Propagate transactions that are incentive-compatible to mine, even
>> if they don't meet minimum feerate alone."
>
> I
(Apologies for the double-post -- I'm resending this message to the list
with much of the quoted text trimmed, because my first message was placed
in the moderation queue for being too large)
Hi,
Thanks for sharing your thoughts on packaged transaction relay.
The sole objective, as expressed in
Thanks again for the feedback. Comments inline.
> On Sep 27, 2022, at 02:29, alicexbt wrote:
>
> Hi Eric,
>
>
>> If by "range" you mean a connected tx subgraph, I don't see why not. But
>> note that nodes only operate over signed txs. PSBT is a wallet workflow.
>
> Matt Corallo mentioned
Hi Eric,
> If by "range" you mean a connected tx subgraph, I don't see why not. But note
> that nodes only operate over signed txs. PSBT is a wallet workflow.
Matt Corallo mentioned that pre-signed transactions created with low fee rate
become an issue when they are broadcasted after a long
> Hi Eric,
>
>
> This email wasn't answered by anyone on mailing list however I did some
> research about packages yesterday including this email and below are my
> observations, questions etc.
Hello, thanks for the reply.
> > The sole objective, as expressed in the OP proposal, is to:
> >
> >
Hi Eric,
This email wasn't answered by anyone on mailing list however I did some
research about packages yesterday including this email and below are my
observations, questions etc.
> The sole objective, as expressed in the OP proposal, is to:
>
> "Propagate transactions that are
15 matches
Mail list logo
