📅 Original date posted:2022-05-24
📝 Original message:On 23 May 2022 9:13:43 pm GMT-04:00, Gloria Zhao <gloriajzhao at gmail.com> wrote:
>> If you're asking for the package for "D", would a response telling you:
>> txid_D (500 sat, 100vB)
>> txid_A (0 sat, 100vB)
>> txid_B (2000 sat, 100 vB)
>> be better, in that case? Then the receiver can maybe do the logic
>> themselves to figure out that they already have A in their mempool
>> so it's fine, or not?
>Right, I also considered giving the fees and sizes of each transaction in
>the package in “pckginfo1”. But I don’t think that information provides
>additional meaning unless you know the exact topology, i.e. also know if
>the parents have dependency relationships between them. For instance, in
>the {A, B, D} package there, even if you have the information listed, your
>decision should be different depending on whether B spends from A.
I don't think that's true? We already know D is above our fee floor so if B with A is also above the floor, we want them all, but also if B isn't above the floor, but all of them combined are, then we also do?
If you've got (A,B,C,X) where B spends A and X spends A,B,C where X+C is below fee floor while A+B and A+B+C+X are above fee floor you have the problem though.
Is it plausible to add the graph in?
Cheers,
aj
--
Sent from my phone.
Anthony Towns [ARCHIVE] /
npub17r…x9l2h
2023-06-07 23:09:49
in reply to nevent1q…m78j
Author Public Key
npub17rld56k4365lfphyd8u8kwuejey5xcazdxptserx03wc4jc9g24stx9l2hPublished at
2023-06-07 23:09:49Event JSON
{
"id": "77a8d6c4c562baa7c7dfa09944a448c6e448c8325757dc0eeb5d3d34c82493ae",
"pubkey": "f0feda6ad58ea9f486e469f87b3b9996494363a26982b864667c5d8acb0542ab",
"created_at": 1686179389,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"2ff757999827be6e4e537a444aad80562c1001e4e555376a251ff2ee7be09c2d",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"517ab63f54e505d3478ac75fc2373f977b89e4ac4e31e82c5905bf1cd62e1507",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"ae3ba6480aa67b9df74235b2a41ef2c684bb2699968a74d137220a710007a0a0"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2022-05-24\n📝 Original message:On 23 May 2022 9:13:43 pm GMT-04:00, Gloria Zhao \u003cgloriajzhao at gmail.com\u003e wrote:\n\u003e\u003e If you're asking for the package for \"D\", would a response telling you:\n\u003e\u003e txid_D (500 sat, 100vB)\n\u003e\u003e txid_A (0 sat, 100vB)\n\u003e\u003e txid_B (2000 sat, 100 vB)\n\u003e\u003e be better, in that case? Then the receiver can maybe do the logic\n\u003e\u003e themselves to figure out that they already have A in their mempool\n\u003e\u003e so it's fine, or not?\n\u003eRight, I also considered giving the fees and sizes of each transaction in\n\u003ethe package in “pckginfo1”. But I don’t think that information provides\n\u003eadditional meaning unless you know the exact topology, i.e. also know if\n\u003ethe parents have dependency relationships between them. For instance, in\n\u003ethe {A, B, D} package there, even if you have the information listed, your\n\u003edecision should be different depending on whether B spends from A.\n\nI don't think that's true? We already know D is above our fee floor so if B with A is also above the floor, we want them all, but also if B isn't above the floor, but all of them combined are, then we also do?\n\nIf you've got (A,B,C,X) where B spends A and X spends A,B,C where X+C is below fee floor while A+B and A+B+C+X are above fee floor you have the problem though.\n\nIs it plausible to add the graph in?\n\nCheers,\naj\n\n\n\n-- \nSent from my phone.",
"sig": "154e56ab2b0643282e941895b799c5f328f6ebcd3855c85c9f96ae611ebcb532aab3c0183cc23848dd1318420ddcf89f85016742b5961cfb8b75a1dff45159e9"
}