📅 Original date posted:2015-07-12
📝 Original message:I keep seeing (on /r/bitcoin) mentions of a 24-hour or 48-hour (varying accounts) interval at which miners clear their mempools. Is this a matter of local policy or something Bitcoin Core does by design?
On Saturday, 11 July 2015, at 5:29 pm, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> It sounds like you are seeking transaction expiration from the mempool, not
> CPFP.
>
> On Sat, Jul 11, 2015 at 4:30 PM, Dan Bryant <dkbryant at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I think a compromise will be somewhere in the middle. I think most people
> > would be OK with TXs that don't have enough fees for P2P transfer to stay
> > in deadmans land. Most people are stuck in a situation where they payed
> > enough to get it into (and keep it in) the pool, but not enough to get it
> > out.
> >
> > If we could get CPFP that only worked on TXs that met the minimum
> > threshold for peer propagation, then I think we would be in much better
> > position to battle this spam flood.
> >
> > On Sat, Jul 11, 2015 at 3:28 PM, Micha Bailey <michabailey at gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Right. The issue (AIUI) is that, right now, even though transactions are
> >> evaluated for inclusion as a group with CPFP, they're not yet evaluated for
> >> relaying as a unit, nor can they be, because the current p2p protocol
> >> doesn't have a way to send multiple transactions in a single protocol
> >> message to signify that they should be evaluated together.
Matt Whitlock [ARCHIVE] /
npub17q…upwet
2023-06-07 15:41:54
in reply to nevent1q…3q6m
Author Public Key
npub17qxssk9sj2r7jswvh3y32e7vwz7mcckhz33gk9nurdmw0lhsfkgswupwetSeen on
wss://relay.nostr.bandPublished at
2023-06-07 15:41:54Event JSON
{
"id": "e969553aa14ddd1093ec3aa77ac211207738c0cb675480818ecd93bac8c29c11",
"pubkey": "f00d0858b09287e941ccbc491567cc70bdbc62d714628b167c1b76e7fef04d91",
"created_at": 1686152514,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"bfd4714bb94a189208ff2ce68134800f654e20d12d58c5096abb21e63eaebf75",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"0ec461e5b44452d553be73ff9409953c426305c6caf8412fe3d62ddec1352fcb",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"b25e10e25d470d9b215521b50da0dfe7a209bec7fedeb53860c3e180ffdc8c11"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2015-07-12\n📝 Original message:I keep seeing (on /r/bitcoin) mentions of a 24-hour or 48-hour (varying accounts) interval at which miners clear their mempools. Is this a matter of local policy or something Bitcoin Core does by design?\n\n\nOn Saturday, 11 July 2015, at 5:29 pm, Jeff Garzik wrote:\n\u003e It sounds like you are seeking transaction expiration from the mempool, not\n\u003e CPFP.\n\u003e \n\u003e On Sat, Jul 11, 2015 at 4:30 PM, Dan Bryant \u003cdkbryant at gmail.com\u003e wrote:\n\u003e \n\u003e \u003e I think a compromise will be somewhere in the middle. I think most people\n\u003e \u003e would be OK with TXs that don't have enough fees for P2P transfer to stay\n\u003e \u003e in deadmans land. Most people are stuck in a situation where they payed\n\u003e \u003e enough to get it into (and keep it in) the pool, but not enough to get it\n\u003e \u003e out.\n\u003e \u003e\n\u003e \u003e If we could get CPFP that only worked on TXs that met the minimum\n\u003e \u003e threshold for peer propagation, then I think we would be in much better\n\u003e \u003e position to battle this spam flood.\n\u003e \u003e\n\u003e \u003e On Sat, Jul 11, 2015 at 3:28 PM, Micha Bailey \u003cmichabailey at gmail.com\u003e\n\u003e \u003e wrote:\n\u003e \u003e\n\u003e \u003e\u003e Right. The issue (AIUI) is that, right now, even though transactions are\n\u003e \u003e\u003e evaluated for inclusion as a group with CPFP, they're not yet evaluated for\n\u003e \u003e\u003e relaying as a unit, nor can they be, because the current p2p protocol\n\u003e \u003e\u003e doesn't have a way to send multiple transactions in a single protocol\n\u003e \u003e\u003e message to signify that they should be evaluated together.",
"sig": "d026f6148a9345351b8e592994fc4a57d67c17a60c16409e80b5277869fb9e567cf16875d0fee7abf23851fb65804c8b62d9fc9b5925d36b7d04712adf2bd4d9"
}