📅 Original date posted:2015-07-16
📝 Original message:On Wednesday 15. July 2015 16.15.24 Tom Harding via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> On 7/15/2015 12:18 PM, Thomas Zander via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> > On Tuesday 14. July 2015 17.24.23 Tom Harding via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> >> Rule 2: A transaction and its dependents are evicted on its 2-hour
> >> anniversary, whether space is required or not
> >
> > Instead of 2 hours, why not a number of blocks?
>
> So users/wallets can know when they should rebroadcast and consider
> increasing the fee.
>
>
> Using 12 blocks, there is a 5% chance he has to wait 3 hours.*
>
> Using 120 minutes, there is only a .23% chance that fewer than 4 blocks
> have occurred.**
Using the good old saying; results in the past are no indication of the
future.
I see a logic error in your thinking.
Your assumption that time is a better indicator is false. Naturally time
itself is universal, but blocks are known by wallets too. Its just as good.
This assumption of yours leans heavily on block mining times, and that is
not guaranteed in the future. Imagine one day half the miners dropping and
blocks take much longer for a week or so. Your assumptions just broke the
mempool.
--
Thomas Zander
Thomas Zander [ARCHIVE] /
npub1du…vyg93
2023-06-07 15:42:18
in reply to nevent1q…d9h3
Author Public Key
npub1du3xh5wgds32a5fweqkd9k45kh30wl7kv2kyu8ugz9c2ztdg00tqqvyg93Published at
2023-06-07 15:42:18Event JSON
{
"id": "cd26ee01c6235c37f6a81e66dbc69b9364fe69abae74454c8ad3e6953cd029ac",
"pubkey": "6f226bd1c86c22aed12ec82cd2dab4b5e2f77fd662ac4e1f881170a12da87bd6",
"created_at": 1686152538,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"3113a33a71d472c2c810f1d3f077a31857bd7728a69f9709e57cf42542f129ba",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"64c26fdc72c6b767050eb6db6e29b0981ad34b4ae19412f77cd113f1843e4b48",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"dc329a02c970aabf03b87185ef51c86afe4586fe3a148508af898af3fabc56a3"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2015-07-16\n📝 Original message:On Wednesday 15. July 2015 16.15.24 Tom Harding via bitcoin-dev wrote:\n\u003e On 7/15/2015 12:18 PM, Thomas Zander via bitcoin-dev wrote:\n\u003e \u003e On Tuesday 14. July 2015 17.24.23 Tom Harding via bitcoin-dev wrote:\n\u003e \u003e\u003e Rule 2: A transaction and its dependents are evicted on its 2-hour\n\u003e \u003e\u003e anniversary, whether space is required or not\n\u003e \u003e \n\u003e \u003e Instead of 2 hours, why not a number of blocks?\n\u003e \n\u003e So users/wallets can know when they should rebroadcast and consider \n\u003e increasing the fee.\n\u003e \n\u003e \n\u003e Using 12 blocks, there is a 5% chance he has to wait 3 hours.*\n\u003e \n\u003e Using 120 minutes, there is only a .23% chance that fewer than 4 blocks \n\u003e have occurred.**\n\nUsing the good old saying; results in the past are no indication of the \nfuture.\nI see a logic error in your thinking.\n\nYour assumption that time is a better indicator is false. Naturally time \nitself is universal, but blocks are known by wallets too. Its just as good.\n\nThis assumption of yours leans heavily on block mining times, and that is\nnot guaranteed in the future. Imagine one day half the miners dropping and \nblocks take much longer for a week or so. Your assumptions just broke the \nmempool.\n\n-- \nThomas Zander",
"sig": "4636da9ddbca58fe19a1be43eec4bf63c634294c7805c5fac7b32b5dc399e7c45b7c168c021a60a7f164efdf7d0c6aec32a079fc5df296f5cfb7d22879a6fc75"
}