š
Original date posted:2014-10-28
š Original message:On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 10:30 AM, Alex Morcos <morcos at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Do you think it would make sense to make that 90% number an argument to
> rpc call? For instance there could be a default (I would use 80%) but then
> you could specify if you required a different certainty. It wouldn't
> require any code changes and might make it easier for people to build more
> complicated logic on top of it.
>
RE: 80% versus 90% : I think a default of 80% will get us a lot of "the
fee estimation logic is broken, I want my transactions to confirm quick and
a lot of them aren't confirming for 2 or 3 blocks."
RE: RPC argument: I'm reluctant to give too many 'knobs' for the RPC
interface. I think the default percentage makes sense as a
command-line/bitcoin.conf option; I can imagine services that want to save
on fees running with -estimatefeethreshold=0.5 (or
-estimatefeethreshold=0.95 if as-fast-as-possible confirmations are
needed). Setting both the number of confirmations and the estimation
threshold on a transaction-by-transaction basis seems like overkill to me.
--
--
Gavin Andresen
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20141028/a346b252/attachment.html>;
Gavin Andresen [ARCHIVE] /
npub1s4ā¦d44kw
2023-06-07 15:26:57
in reply to nevent1qā¦yxk8
Author Public Key
npub1s4lj77xuzcu7wy04afcr487f0r3za0f8n2775xrpkld2sv639mjqsd44kwPublished at
2023-06-07 15:26:57Event JSON
{
"id": "73a4d08942196420687d900392fa86ca3052fbcdce0e0ea9559b44848e86afe4",
"pubkey": "857f2f78dc1639e711f5ea703a9fc978e22ebd279abdea1861b7daa833512ee4",
"created_at": 1686151617,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"22b496210e2e75fac8ac4c7f5586e67f707d43b5b6cd72cb909b95110d85c775",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"f79d1ff64b59bdd2eb781b03387a197b72bd4686a04e9012cb74ef98151c8334",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"78aa6925095b629d95a9e79aed6ed9da0973239bc6eedf11af42240f0e1d755c"
]
],
"content": "š
Original date posted:2014-10-28\nš Original message:On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 10:30 AM, Alex Morcos \u003cmorcos at gmail.com\u003e wrote:\n\u003e\n\u003e Do you think it would make sense to make that 90% number an argument to\n\u003e rpc call? For instance there could be a default (I would use 80%) but then\n\u003e you could specify if you required a different certainty. It wouldn't\n\u003e require any code changes and might make it easier for people to build more\n\u003e complicated logic on top of it.\n\u003e\n\nRE: 80% versus 90% : I think a default of 80% will get us a lot of \"the\nfee estimation logic is broken, I want my transactions to confirm quick and\na lot of them aren't confirming for 2 or 3 blocks.\"\n\nRE: RPC argument: I'm reluctant to give too many 'knobs' for the RPC\ninterface. I think the default percentage makes sense as a\ncommand-line/bitcoin.conf option; I can imagine services that want to save\non fees running with -estimatefeethreshold=0.5 (or\n-estimatefeethreshold=0.95 if as-fast-as-possible confirmations are\nneeded). Setting both the number of confirmations and the estimation\nthreshold on a transaction-by-transaction basis seems like overkill to me.\n\n-- \n--\nGavin Andresen\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20141028/a346b252/attachment.html\u003e",
"sig": "564fc20c1b31c995aeff69a80539ee6d6c49f6f989234290981c471f2a2bf75a7109bb2c4deafcf9bd672cd0b14527ce4c05654b0bd601296a91597f3c762a0f"
}