Author: Jeff Garzik 2015-07-11 22:29:07
Published on: 2015-07-11T22:29:07+00:00
The email conversation appears to be regarding the issue of transaction expiration from the mempool and the use of child-pays-for-parent (CPFP) as a solution. The sender suggests that a compromise would be ideal, where transactions with insufficient fees for P2P transfer will remain in a state of "deadmans land". The concern is that some transactions have paid enough to enter the mempool but not enough to exit it. The sender proposes the use of CPFP on transactions meeting the minimum threshold for peer propagation to combat spam flood. The response affirms this proposal but highlights an issue with the current p2p protocol, which does not have a way to send multiple transactions in a single protocol message to signify they should be evaluated together.
Updated on: 2023-06-10T02:16:25.797671+00:00