📅 Original date posted:2015-07-16
📝 Original message:On 7/16/2015 2:38 AM, Thomas Zander via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> 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.
>
It's not a question of right vs. wrong. Either method has consequences
for user expectations and behavior.
With fixed-block mempool expiration, the expiration time is variable.
User can get an alert, but at an unpredictable time.
With fixed-timeout, the likelihood of expiration is more variable
(expiration occurrence is unpredictable regardless), but any expiration
will occur at the timeout.
Tom Harding [ARCHIVE] /
npub1ms…pmwjy
2023-06-07 15:42:19
in reply to nevent1q…c7q4
Author Public Key
npub1msef5qkfwz4t7qacwxz775wgdtlytph78g2g2z903x90874u263sypmwjyPublished at
2023-06-07 15:42:19Event JSON
{
"id": "e14a3bca48e14ed0a363c76c385215478a5d1b71b41ea36677ae2f5e34fa08e0",
"pubkey": "dc329a02c970aabf03b87185ef51c86afe4586fe3a148508af898af3fabc56a3",
"created_at": 1686152539,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"3113a33a71d472c2c810f1d3f077a31857bd7728a69f9709e57cf42542f129ba",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"cd26ee01c6235c37f6a81e66dbc69b9364fe69abae74454c8ad3e6953cd029ac",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"6f226bd1c86c22aed12ec82cd2dab4b5e2f77fd662ac4e1f881170a12da87bd6"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2015-07-16\n📝 Original message:On 7/16/2015 2:38 AM, Thomas Zander via bitcoin-dev wrote:\n\u003e On Wednesday 15. July 2015 16.15.24 Tom Harding via bitcoin-dev wrote:\n\u003e\u003e On 7/15/2015 12:18 PM, Thomas Zander via bitcoin-dev wrote:\n\u003e\u003e\u003e On Tuesday 14. July 2015 17.24.23 Tom Harding via bitcoin-dev wrote:\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e Rule 2: A transaction and its dependents are evicted on its 2-hour\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e anniversary, whether space is required or not\n\u003e\u003e\u003e Instead of 2 hours, why not a number of blocks?\n\u003e\u003e So users/wallets can know when they should rebroadcast and consider\n\u003e\u003e increasing the fee.\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e Using 12 blocks, there is a 5% chance he has to wait 3 hours.*\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e Using 120 minutes, there is only a .23% chance that fewer than 4 blocks\n\u003e\u003e have occurred.**\n\u003e Using the good old saying; results in the past are no indication of the\n\u003e future.\n\u003e I see a logic error in your thinking.\n\u003e\n\u003e Your assumption that time is a better indicator is false. Naturally time\n\u003e itself is universal, but blocks are known by wallets too. Its just as good.\n\u003e\n\u003e This assumption of yours leans heavily on block mining times, and that is\n\u003e not guaranteed in the future. Imagine one day half the miners dropping and\n\u003e blocks take much longer for a week or so. Your assumptions just broke the\n\u003e mempool.\n\u003e\n\nIt's not a question of right vs. wrong. Either method has consequences \nfor user expectations and behavior.\n\nWith fixed-block mempool expiration, the expiration time is variable. \nUser can get an alert, but at an unpredictable time.\n\nWith fixed-timeout, the likelihood of expiration is more variable \n(expiration occurrence is unpredictable regardless), but any expiration \nwill occur at the timeout.",
"sig": "683a343dbee6d24eb97236ff70ea5544cb945847ab08ce88347e023c961e91c87754d4b7640632ac36430b6c3e6c0fedc705a7cf1cb89a5239326a708a0011f0"
}