On Sat, Oct 26, 2013 at 10:25:06AM +1000, Gavin Andresen wrote: > RE: lots of other comments: > > I feel like there is a lot of "in the weeds" discussion here about > theoretical, what-if-this-and-that-happens-in-the-future scenarios.
Um... yeah. Note how I said on your original pull-req that I'd be happy to see it merged once the bugs were fixed (95% of the transactions it produced had zero fees even with zero priority txins for some reason) and you added a lower bound on fees in the wallet code as a "do no harm" measure. In fact, I think I wasn't being conservative enough given that it affects relaying of transactions. Instead add both lower and upper bounds to what the wallet and relaying code uses for 0.9.0 and it'd probably be safe to merge. We can get relax those "training wheels" in 0.9.1 or 0.9.2 once we've had some real-world experience with how the estimation system works in practice, particularly for how it affects relaying. -- 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org 00000000000000036253c7a02061121b6a12484278a3c472a22e47a821c28a69
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
------------------------------------------------------------------------------ October Webinars: Code for Performance Free Intel webinars can help you accelerate application performance. Explore tips for MPI, OpenMP, advanced profiling, and more. Get the most from the latest Intel processors and coprocessors. See abstracts and register > http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=60135991&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
_______________________________________________ Bitcoin-development mailing list Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
