Tier Nolan writes:
> What are the use cases for relative lock time verify? I have 1 and I think
> that is the kind of thing it is useful for.
>
> I think that most cases are just to guarantee that the other party has a
> chance to react. This means that 8191 blocks should be more than enough
> (
On Mon, Jun 08, 2015 at 06:53:54PM -0400, Kristov Atlas wrote:
Two other things:
> On Sat, Jun 6, 2015 at 10:35 PM, Peter Todd wrote:
>
> > Why mention SIGHASH_SINGLE at all? Its use-case is highly specialized
> > protocols; you haven't taken into account the needs of those protocols.
> > For
You are right of course. This will work. I like this idea more than my own
proposed fix, as it doesn’t make any big changes to the economics of the system
in the way that burning would have.
From: Gavin Andresen
Sent: Tuesday, June 09, 2015 11:25 AM
To: Raystonn .
Cc: Loi Luu ; Bitcoin Dev
On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 1:52 PM, Raystonn . wrote:
> That does sound good on the surface, but how do we enforce #1 and #2?
> They seem to be unenforceable, as a miner can adjust the size of the memory
> pool in his local source.
>
It doesn't have to be enforced. As long as a reasonable percenta
That does sound good on the surface, but how do we enforce #1 and #2? They
seem to be unenforceable, as a miner can adjust the size of the memory pool in
his local source.
From: Gavin Andresen
Sent: Tuesday, June 09, 2015 6:36 AM
To: Loi Luu
Cc: Raystonn . ; Bitcoin Dev
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin
On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 2:36 PM, Gavin Andresen
wrote:
> How about this for mitigating this potential attack:
>
> 1. Limit the memory pool to some reasonable number of blocks-worth of
> transactions (e.g. 11)
> 2. If evicting transactions from the memory pool, prefer to evict
> transactions that a
How about this for mitigating this potential attack:
1. Limit the memory pool to some reasonable number of blocks-worth of
transactions (e.g. 11)
2. If evicting transactions from the memory pool, prefer to evict
transactions that are part of long chains of unconfirmed transactions.
3. Allow blocks
>
> The proposed fix is to add a new rule on how
> fees are handled. Some amount of every fee should be considered as burned
> and can never be spent. I will propose 50% of the fee here, but there may
> be better numbers that can be discovered prior to putting this into place.
> If we'd like mine
8 matches
Mail list logo
