📅 Original date posted:2013-10-26
📝 Original message:On Sat, Oct 26, 2013 at 10:25:06AM +1000, Gavin Andresen wrote:
> RE: lots of other comments:
>
> I feel like there is a lot of "in the weeds" discussion here about
> theoretical, what-if-this-and-that-happens-in-the-future scenarios.
Um... yeah. Note how I said on your original pull-req that I'd be happy
to see it merged once the bugs were fixed (95% of the transactions it
produced had zero fees even with zero priority txins for some reason)
and you added a lower bound on fees in the wallet code as a "do no harm"
measure.
In fact, I think I wasn't being conservative enough given that it
affects relaying of transactions. Instead add both lower and upper
bounds to what the wallet and relaying code uses for 0.9.0 and it'd
probably be safe to merge. We can get relax those "training wheels" in
0.9.1 or 0.9.2 once we've had some real-world experience with how the
estimation system works in practice, particularly for how it affects
relaying.
--
'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
00000000000000036253c7a02061121b6a12484278a3c472a22e47a821c28a69
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 685 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20131026/4477c3ab/attachment.sig>;
Peter Todd [ARCHIVE] /
npub1m2…a2np2
2023-06-07 15:07:58
in reply to nevent1q…vwly
Author Public Key
npub1m230cem2yh3mtdzkg32qhj73uytgkyg5ylxsu083n3tpjnajxx4qqa2np2Published at
2023-06-07 15:07:58Event JSON
{
"id": "5ae6a04c1463ca77920ed35b4a5667b3b6cedf373932b38659d60ee0e2836b81",
"pubkey": "daa2fc676a25e3b5b45644540bcbd1e1168b111427cd0e3cf19c56194fb231aa",
"created_at": 1686150478,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"82aca9d85d9f8088587f8710d511958183b300f7daa0a8fd33090fc324b509ac",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"93e22621b9ed7ad49f9b32815ed454da07a93e6d311c2b48f6454a323fd46a0b",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"857f2f78dc1639e711f5ea703a9fc978e22ebd279abdea1861b7daa833512ee4"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2013-10-26\n📝 Original message:On Sat, Oct 26, 2013 at 10:25:06AM +1000, Gavin Andresen wrote:\n\u003e RE: lots of other comments:\n\u003e \n\u003e I feel like there is a lot of \"in the weeds\" discussion here about\n\u003e theoretical, what-if-this-and-that-happens-in-the-future scenarios.\n\nUm... yeah. Note how I said on your original pull-req that I'd be happy\nto see it merged once the bugs were fixed (95% of the transactions it\nproduced had zero fees even with zero priority txins for some reason)\nand you added a lower bound on fees in the wallet code as a \"do no harm\"\nmeasure.\n\nIn fact, I think I wasn't being conservative enough given that it\naffects relaying of transactions. Instead add both lower and upper\nbounds to what the wallet and relaying code uses for 0.9.0 and it'd\nprobably be safe to merge. We can get relax those \"training wheels\" in\n0.9.1 or 0.9.2 once we've had some real-world experience with how the\nestimation system works in practice, particularly for how it affects\nrelaying.\n\n-- \n'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org\n00000000000000036253c7a02061121b6a12484278a3c472a22e47a821c28a69\n-------------- next part --------------\nA non-text attachment was scrubbed...\nName: signature.asc\nType: application/pgp-signature\nSize: 685 bytes\nDesc: Digital signature\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20131026/4477c3ab/attachment.sig\u003e",
"sig": "dc590f4eff4de0bd12bc116dfe2e0849c618e00e55f8347a6611174b4901e599213d0ec2c81fb29c5506ba2dbb354b55c38c40c77e4c6bcbdec56c50e78aa729"
}