Author: Jorge Timón 2015-11-12 20:43:17
Published on: 2015-11-12T20:43:17+00:00
On November 12, 2015, there was a discussion on bitcoin-dev mailing list regarding mining code and block priority size. Luke Dashjr suggested that the starting priority should be optional for ease of implementation, while default block priority size should be set to 0. Matt Corallo agreed with the former but didn't support changing defaults as it would influence miner policy. However, he acknowledged that in this case, it was necessary to signal deprecation of the policy option.Chun Wang proposed merging priority, feerate, and sigoprate into one number, where 576 priorities would trade for 1 satoshi per kb. The idea of having customizable cost and reward was supported by some members. The main issue highlighted was that the priority was not integrated into the reward function and couldn't be easily changed without slowing down other required improvements in mempool limits.
Updated on: 2023-06-11T01:02:49.666234+00:00