[bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin Core and hard forks
jeanpaulkogelman at me.com
Fri Jul 24 01:25:57 UTC 2015
I think implicit QoS is far simpler to implement, requires less parties and is closer to what Bitcoin started out as: a peer-to-peer digital cash system, not a peer-to-let-me-handle-that-for-you-to-peer system.
> On Jul 24, 2015, at 9:08 AM, Eric Lombrozo <elombrozo at gmail.com> wrote:
> By using third parties separate from individual miners that do bidding on your behalf you get a mechanism that allows QoS guarantees and shifting the complexity and risk from the wallet with little computational resources to a service with abundance of them. Using timelocked contracts it’s possible to enforce the guarantees.
> Negotiating directly with miners via smart contracts seems difficult at best.
>> On Jul 23, 2015, at 6:03 PM, Jean-Paul Kogelman via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>> Doesn't matter.
>> It's not going to be perfect given the block time variance among other factors but it's far more workable than guessing whether or not your transaction is going to end up in a block at all.
>>> On Jul 24, 2015, at 8:53 AM, Peter Todd <pete at petertodd.org> wrote:
>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>> Hash: SHA256
>>>> On 23 July 2015 20:49:20 GMT-04:00, Jean-Paul Kogelman via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>>>> And it's obvious how a size cap would interfere with such a QoS scheme.
>>>> Miners wouldn't be able to deliver the below guarantees if they have to
>>>> start excluding transactions.
>>> As mining is a random, poisson process, obviously giving guarantees without a majority of hashing power isn't possible.
>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>>> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>> bitcoin-dev mailing list
>> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
More information about the bitcoin-dev