In the short-term, maybe. Keep in mind that the code for tx relay is
fairly different and the bandwidth for transaction relay on these
nodes is already lower than it is for blocks (by design). That said,
I'd like to look into doing tx-less block relays for transactions that
peers already have to li
On 11/08/13 06:46, Mike Hearn wrote:
> I took a brief look at the code - it's looking very reasonable. You can
> replace any construct like
>
> try {
> Thread.sleep(1000);
> } catch (InterruptedException e) {
> throw new RuntimeException(e);
> }
>
> which is quite verbose, just with
> Unint
Couple of thoughts:
RE: the marvelous coincidence that the average fee these days is very close
to the modeled minimum orphan cost:
Engineers tend to underestimate the power of markets, even inefficient
markets, to arrive at the 'correct' price. It would not surprise me at all
if the messy, chaot
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi John,
Thanks for the feedback - comments below:
>> However, it occurred to me that things can in fact be calculated even
>> simpler: The measured fork rate will mean out all the different pool
>> sizes and network latencies and will as such provid
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On Fri, Nov 8, 2013 at 4:21 PM, Goss, Brian C., M.D.
wrote:
> Peter,
>
> What is the propagation time within a pool? If my pool is made up of a ton
> of fancy ASICs connected by 300 baud modems, how does that affect your
> analysis (ie, Q for a min
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
> To peer with the public relay nodes, simply select the closest region
> out of us-west (West Coast US), us-east (East Coast US), eu (Western
> Europe), au (Australia), or jpy (Japan) and add
> public.REGION.relay.mattcorallo.com to your addnode lis
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
> Last week I posted a writeup: "On the optimal block size and why
> transaction fees are 8 times too low (or transactions 8 times too big)".
>
> Peter Todd made some nice additions to it including different pool sizes
> into the numbers.
Peter clai
Just a quick comment on the actual fees (checked at blockchain.info) the
average fee over the last 90 days is actually ~0.0003BTC/txn - so not
too far behind the theoretical minimum of 0.00037BTC/txn.
I suppose, though, that it has more to do with old clients and fee
settings (0.0005) than network
Last week I posted a writeup: "On the optimal block size and why
transaction fees are 8 times too low (or transactions 8 times too big)".
Peter Todd made some nice additions to it including different pool sizes
into the numbers.
However, it occurred to me that things can in fact be calculated eve
9 matches
Mail list logo
