[Bitcoin-development] Proposed alternatives to the 20MB step function

Aaron Voisine voisine at gmail.com
Fri May 8 23:15:41 UTC 2015

That's fair, and we've implemented child-pays-for-parent for spending
unconfirmed inputs in breadwallet. But what should the behavior be when
those options aren't understood/implemented/used?

My argument is that the less risky, more conservative default fallback
behavior should be either non-propagation or delayed confirmation, which is
generally what we have now, until we hit the block size limit. We still
have lots of safe, non-controversial, easy to experiment with options to
add fee pressure, causing users to economize on block space without
resorting to dropping transactions after a prolonged delay.

Aaron Voisine
co-founder and CEO

On Fri, May 8, 2015 at 3:45 PM, Mark Friedenbach <mark at friedenbach.org>

> On Fri, May 8, 2015 at 3:43 PM, Aaron Voisine <voisine at gmail.com> wrote:
>> This is a clever way to tie block size to fees.
>> I would just like to point out though that it still fundamentally is
>> using hard block size limits to enforce scarcity. Transactions with below
>> market fees will hang in limbo for days and fail, instead of failing
>> immediately by not propagating, or seeing degraded, long confirmation times
>> followed by eventual success.
> There are already solutions to this which are waiting to be deployed as
> default policy to bitcoind, and need to be implemented in other clients:
> replace-by-fee and child-pays-for-parent.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150508/561f60f5/attachment.html>

More information about the bitcoin-dev mailing list