📅 Original date posted:2015-06-12
📝 Original message:One possible solution that wallets could adopt when blocks fill up, would
be to abandon the p2p network for transaction propagation altogether, and
instead work directly with a handful of the largest miners and pools to get
transactions into blocks. The miners could auction off space in their
blocks with the guarantee that they will be included in the order accepted.
We'd lose the peer-to-peer nature of sending transactions for a federated
service operator style model, but avoid the problem of unpredictable
transaction failure. Also, unlike replace-by-fee, this would allow for
a send-and-forget usage pattern, as well as known up-front fees. Something
like this is certainly what I imagine the large hosted wallet companies
will end up moving to.
Aaron
On Thursday, June 11, 2015, Mike Hearn <mike at plan99.net> wrote:
> > Re: "dropped in an unpredictable way" - transactions would be dropped
>> > lowest fee/KB first, a completely predictable way.
>>
>> Quite agreed.
>
>
> No, Aaron is correct. It's unpredictable from the perspective of the user
> sending the transaction, and as they are the ones picking the fees, that is
> what matters.
>
--
Aaron Voisine
co-founder and CEO
breadwallet.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150611/18a6e3a1/attachment.html>;
Aaron Voisine [ARCHIVE] /
npub18g…knkzl
2023-06-07 15:37:21
in reply to nevent1q…vnm7
Author Public Key
npub18gjvug29c4yg46lmplq38e75gg6wn5mn8taytckcsr4jt8p74h3s5knkzlPublished at
2023-06-07 15:37:21Event JSON
{
"id": "699ab83b8cdcc1056723fbaf159f0b0a87826694098e26f03e9d00961c19fd4f",
"pubkey": "3a24ce2145c5488aebfb0fc113e7d44234e9d3733afa45e2d880eb259c3eade3",
"created_at": 1686152241,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"e5c5b327043fce5d06c04d5d47b9e1bc42816638599cdc94c838afd2a20dc49c",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"2ef8cde2c029fc58b1924d5903f1c7ab4cdd0fea917d906dab6b5102dbac5df4",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"f2c95df3766562e3b96b79a0254881c59e8639f23987846961cf55412a77f6f2"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2015-06-12\n📝 Original message:One possible solution that wallets could adopt when blocks fill up, would\nbe to abandon the p2p network for transaction propagation altogether, and\ninstead work directly with a handful of the largest miners and pools to get\ntransactions into blocks. The miners could auction off space in their\nblocks with the guarantee that they will be included in the order accepted.\nWe'd lose the peer-to-peer nature of sending transactions for a federated\nservice operator style model, but avoid the problem of unpredictable\ntransaction failure. Also, unlike replace-by-fee, this would allow for\na send-and-forget usage pattern, as well as known up-front fees. Something\nlike this is certainly what I imagine the large hosted wallet companies\nwill end up moving to.\n\nAaron\n\nOn Thursday, June 11, 2015, Mike Hearn \u003cmike at plan99.net\u003e wrote:\n\n\u003e \u003e Re: \"dropped in an unpredictable way\" - transactions would be dropped\n\u003e\u003e \u003e lowest fee/KB first, a completely predictable way.\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e Quite agreed.\n\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e No, Aaron is correct. It's unpredictable from the perspective of the user\n\u003e sending the transaction, and as they are the ones picking the fees, that is\n\u003e what matters.\n\u003e\n\n\n-- \n\nAaron Voisine\nco-founder and CEO\nbreadwallet.com\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150611/18a6e3a1/attachment.html\u003e",
"sig": "f9443a0fe4cf883067b384a6b94e36d133f67c7621b8675480ff68a8e53643b95f7f75d092738688fee4b6989c7293e178513c44f5daa5d5cd90bd5ae1ac367e"
}