On Wednesday, October 28, 2015 10:41:39 PM Jonathan Toomim wrote:
> On Oct 28, 2015, at 12:13 AM, Luke Dashjr wrote:
> > On Wednesday, October 28, 2015 4:26:52 AM Jonathan Toomim via bitcoin-dev
> > wrote:
> >
> > This is all in the realm of node policy, which must be easy to
> > modify/customise
On Oct 28, 2015, at 12:13 AM, Luke Dashjr wrote:
> On Wednesday, October 28, 2015 4:26:52 AM Jonathan Toomim via bitcoin-dev
> wrote:
>
> This is all in the realm of node policy, which must be easy to
> modify/customise in a flexible manner. So simplifying other code in a way that
> makes the p
On Wednesday, October 28, 2015 4:26:52 AM Jonathan Toomim via bitcoin-dev
wrote:
> Assigning 5% of block space based on bitcoin-days destroyed (BDD) and the
> other 95% based on fees seems like a rather awkward approach to me. For
> one thing, it means two code paths in pretty much every procedure
Assigning 5% of block space based on bitcoin-days destroyed (BDD) and the other
95% based on fees seems like a rather awkward approach to me. For one thing, it
means two code paths in pretty much every procedure dealing with a constrained
resource (e.g. mempool, CNB). This makes code harder two