[ATTN POOL OPS] List of pools' transaction policies.

Luke-Jr

legendary

Activity: 2576

Merit: 1186

Quote from: miernik on June 04, 2013, 07:33:26 AM

Now that 0.8.2 is out, perhaps pool operators can start updating the list, especially that the default minimum low-priority fee in pre-0.8.2 is 0.0005 BTC/kB and from 0.8.2 is 0.0001 BTC/kB, so its quite important to see which pools use which policies.

Not quite. I'm pretty sure the 0.0005 BTC was only for sending fees.
The reason behind reducing it was that miners were already accepting the lower fees anyway.

miernik

sr. member

Activity: 334

Merit: 250

Now that 0.8.2 is out, perhaps pool operators can start updating the list, especially that the default minimum low-priority fee in pre-0.8.2 is 0.0005 BTC/kB and from 0.8.2 is 0.0001 BTC/kB, so its quite important to see which pools use which policies.

organofcorti

donator

Activity: 2058

Merit: 1007

Poor impulse control.

Quote from: doublec on March 15, 2013, 11:55:01 PM

Quote from: organofcorti on March 15, 2013, 11:32:28 PM

HHTT has figured out bdb's limits, and is using those?

They might be doing what I'm doing. My 0.8.0 stratum server node is connected behind a 0.7.2 node so if it sends a bad block the 0.7.2 node will stop it before propagating it to the network. My stratum server is at the defaults though since I'd rather not orphan a block and halt my 0.7.2 getwork node.

If fireduck is doing what you are but with the 0.8.0 server at accepting larger blocks, he will want to fix that fast - a PPS pool does not want orphans.

doublec

legendary

Activity: 1078

Merit: 1005

Quote from: organofcorti on March 15, 2013, 11:32:28 PM

HHTT has figured out bdb's limits, and is using those?

They might be doing what I'm doing. My 0.8.0 stratum server node is connected behind a 0.7.2 node so if it sends a bad block the 0.7.2 node will stop it before propagating it to the network. My stratum server is at the defaults though since I'd rather not orphan a block and halt my 0.7.2 getwork node.

organofcorti

donator

Activity: 2058

Merit: 1007

Poor impulse control.

Quote from: Graet on March 15, 2013, 11:25:19 PM

Quote from: organofcorti on March 15, 2013, 07:57:04 PM

Quote from: grue on March 15, 2013, 11:48:38 AM

Quote from: Luke-Jr on March 10, 2013, 04:38:50 PM

No:

This is biased to support SatoshiDice's DDoS attack against Bitcoin. Instead of "transaction discrimination", it should be "anti-flooding filter quality"

agreed, "discrimination" has a negative connotation to it.

change it to "transaction filtering" or "ignored transactions"

Fixed. I was getting around to doing it, then that stupid Berkeley database ruined everything and I forgot.

Quote from: doublec on March 15, 2013, 05:17:29 PM

Bitparking is currently using all the default settings from the 0.7.2 client.

Thanks, doublec.

I'm not planning on updating the OP until there's a patch or there's no bdb clients left - until then block sizes will be limited to default for pretty much everyone. Although I suppose I could keep the "tx filtering" updated.

Looks like not all pools are on the defaults despite all that has happened this week Sad

http://blockchain.info/block-index/358797/00000000000001ba4bd010816667d2706fc0ddb3b258835c7d40d2a8c4d2b6a9
617kB from HHTT

HHTT has figured out bdb's limits, and is using those?

Graet

vip

Activity: 980

Merit: 1001

Quote from: organofcorti on March 15, 2013, 07:57:04 PM

Quote from: grue on March 15, 2013, 11:48:38 AM

Quote from: Luke-Jr on March 10, 2013, 04:38:50 PM

No:

This is biased to support SatoshiDice's DDoS attack against Bitcoin. Instead of "transaction discrimination", it should be "anti-flooding filter quality"

agreed, "discrimination" has a negative connotation to it.

change it to "transaction filtering" or "ignored transactions"

Fixed. I was getting around to doing it, then that stupid Berkeley database ruined everything and I forgot.

Quote from: doublec on March 15, 2013, 05:17:29 PM

Bitparking is currently using all the default settings from the 0.7.2 client.

Thanks, doublec.

I'm not planning on updating the OP until there's a patch or there's no bdb clients left - until then block sizes will be limited to default for pretty much everyone. Although I suppose I could keep the "tx filtering" updated.

Looks like not all pools are on the defaults despite all that has happened this week Sad

http://blockchain.info/block-index/358797/00000000000001ba4bd010816667d2706fc0ddb3b258835c7d40d2a8c4d2b6a9
617kB from HHTT

organofcorti

donator

Activity: 2058

Merit: 1007

Poor impulse control.

Quote from: grue on March 15, 2013, 11:48:38 AM

Quote from: Luke-Jr on March 10, 2013, 04:38:50 PM

No:

This is biased to support SatoshiDice's DDoS attack against Bitcoin. Instead of "transaction discrimination", it should be "anti-flooding filter quality"

agreed, "discrimination" has a negative connotation to it.

change it to "transaction filtering" or "ignored transactions"

Fixed. I was getting around to doing it, then that stupid Berkeley database ruined everything and I forgot.

Quote from: doublec on March 15, 2013, 05:17:29 PM

Bitparking is currently using all the default settings from the 0.7.2 client.

Thanks, doublec.

I'm not planning on updating the OP until there's a patch or there's no bdb clients left - until then block sizes will be limited to default for pretty much everyone. Although I suppose I could keep the "tx filtering" updated.

doublec

legendary

Activity: 1078

Merit: 1005

Bitparking is currently using all the default settings from the 0.7.2 client.

grue

legendary

Activity: 2058

Merit: 1452

Quote from: Luke-Jr on March 10, 2013, 04:38:50 PM

No:

This is biased to support SatoshiDice's DDoS attack against Bitcoin. Instead of "transaction discrimination", it should be "anti-flooding filter quality"

agreed, "discrimination" has a negative connotation to it.

change it to "transaction filtering" or "ignored transactions"

kinlo

sr. member

Activity: 263

Merit: 250

Pool operator of Triplemining.com

Triplemining currently does everything with default settings from the 0.7.2 client. So no filtering, 250kb blocks etc etc
At least for now, I'm waiting for 0.8.1 before I start playing again with the values

organofcorti

donator

Activity: 2058

Merit: 1007

Poor impulse control.

OP updated (a bit)

JWU42

legendary

Activity: 1666

Merit: 1000

Quote from: eleuthria on March 12, 2013, 01:28:17 PM

At least for the time being, the above settings no longer apply for BTC Guild (and probably the few other pools that responded). Hopefully 0.8.1 comes soon so we can still increase block size, without worrying about creating a fork due to the 0.7 bug.

+1000

eleuthria

legendary

Activity: 1750

Merit: 1007

At least for the time being, the above settings no longer apply for BTC Guild (and probably the few other pools that responded). Hopefully 0.8.1 comes soon so we can still increase block size, without worrying about creating a fork due to the 0.7 bug.

JWU42

legendary

Activity: 1666

Merit: 1000

Quote from: organofcorti on March 11, 2013, 04:50:22 AM

Quote from: JWU42 on March 10, 2013, 09:42:11 AM

A comment from fireduck on HHTT policies...

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.1604552

"Default" isn't the right answer to a few of those categories, I think. Either way, I'd like pool ops to post their policies explicitly so I don't get it wrong.

OK - then "not specified" which would fall to the bitcoind (believe he is running 0.8.0) default for everything except mintxfee

Code:

Block creation options:
-blockminsize= Set minimum block size in bytes (default: 0)
-blockprioritysize= Set maximum size of high-priority/low-fee transactions in bytes (default: 27000)

We have asked FD to post here as well

kano

legendary

Activity: 4634

Merit: 1851

Linux since 1997 RedHat 4

Quote from: organofcorti on March 11, 2013, 05:02:06 AM

Quote from: eleuthria on March 11, 2013, 04:57:42 AM

For clarity, I'd define the "default/standard" for BTC Guild fee policy as: Satoshi Client (0. Cool

Default. IE: We do not impose a non-standard fee requirement, just whatever the most current client defaults to.

Not according to Luke-jr:

Quote from: Luke-Jr on March 10, 2013, 08:53:02 PM

Quote from: organofcorti on March 10, 2013, 08:20:57 PM

Quote from: Luke-Jr on March 10, 2013, 04:38:50 PM

There is no such thing as "Standard" transaction fee.

This is the tx fee as recommended by the standard client. I didn't make that at all clear, sorry about that.

That varies by branch/version, especially on the miner end.

Is this statement correct or not? I can't judge.

Luke said it.
If you bet it was either a twisting of fact or a dictionary definition that is incorrect in any but Luke's magic fairy dictionary, then you'd be right more often than wrong.

As for his actual answer, it is nonsense.

The miners have nothing to do with it since there are no 'standard' miners that include the option to mess with transactions.

Yes the standard bitcoind client has different rules over time - however, Luke also makes tests of his own that he thinks should be called standard - but are just simply him making releases that are full of rejected code.
Luke' definition of standard includes anything that flies out of his ass ...

organofcorti

donator

Activity: 2058

Merit: 1007

Poor impulse control.

Quote from: eleuthria on March 11, 2013, 04:57:42 AM

For clarity, I'd define the "default/standard" for BTC Guild fee policy as: Satoshi Client (0. Cool

Default. IE: We do not impose a non-standard fee requirement, just whatever the most current client defaults to.

Not according to Luke-jr:

Quote from: Luke-Jr on March 10, 2013, 08:53:02 PM

Quote from: organofcorti on March 10, 2013, 08:20:57 PM

Quote from: Luke-Jr on March 10, 2013, 04:38:50 PM

There is no such thing as "Standard" transaction fee.

This is the tx fee as recommended by the standard client. I didn't make that at all clear, sorry about that.

That varies by branch/version, especially on the miner end.

Is this statement correct or not? I can't judge.

eleuthria

legendary

Activity: 1750

Merit: 1007

For clarity, I'd define the "default/standard" for BTC Guild fee policy as: Satoshi Client (0. Cool

Default. IE: We do not impose a non-standard fee requirement, just whatever the most current client defaults to.

organofcorti

donator

Activity: 2058

Merit: 1007

Poor impulse control.

Quote from: JWU42 on March 10, 2013, 09:42:11 AM

A comment from fireduck on HHTT policies...

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.1604552

"Default" isn't the right answer to a few of those categories, I think. Either way, I'd like pool ops to post their policies explicitly so I don't get it wrong.

organofcorti

donator

Activity: 2058

Merit: 1007

Poor impulse control.

Quote from: Luke-Jr on March 10, 2013, 08:53:02 PM

No, the behaviour of bitcoind has always been to try to filter out floods/spam.
To date, the algorithms used in releases include coin age, output sizes, transaction data size, and fees included.

OK, I can change the category to "Source filtering". I don't think anyone would mind, and I think you're right in that it doesn't have the same negative connotation that "Transaction discrimination" does.

Quote from: Luke-Jr on March 10, 2013, 08:53:02 PM

Quote from: organofcorti on March 10, 2013, 08:20:57 PM

Quote from: Luke-Jr on March 10, 2013, 04:38:50 PM

There is no such thing as "Standard" transaction fee.

This is the tx fee as recommended by the standard client. I didn't make that at all clear, sorry about that.

That varies by branch/version, especially on the miner end.

In this case the minimum fees may need to be made explicit.

Quote from: Luke-Jr on March 10, 2013, 08:53:02 PM

Quote from: organofcorti on March 10, 2013, 08:20:57 PM

Quote from: Luke-Jr on March 10, 2013, 04:38:50 PM

The chart presupposes bitcoind 0.8 logic.

Could you clarify that response? It presupposes I know what the hell you're talking about Wink

While "maximum block size" has a well-defined meaning, the others do not.
"Minimum block size" by its literal meaning is obviously something like 140 bytes for all pools - so I presume you mean something else.
"Priority block size" makes no sense until you define what "priority" is - and this is (intentionally) not well-defined even in bitcoind.

Minimum block size and priority block size are both explained in the OP quite clearly:

Quote

Minimum block size: the largest size block a pool will create that can include any tranaction based on priority and regardless of fee.

Quote

Priority block size: block space given over to high priority and low or no fee transactions.

You are welcome to suggest another name for either of them if these category names are not sufficiently intuitive.

Luke-Jr

legendary

Activity: 2576

Merit: 1186

Quote from: organofcorti on March 10, 2013, 08:20:57 PM

Quote from: Luke-Jr on March 10, 2013, 04:38:50 PM

No:

This is biased to support SatoshiDice's DDoS attack against Bitcoin. Instead of "transaction discrimination", it should be "anti-flooding filter quality"

I disagree. If the standard previously was to include all sources of tx, then the change would be to refuse to include some tx based on the source. This is not the previous standard behaviour.

I'm not pushing one point of view over another. If you have a serious suggestion about how to name the category- for example "source filtering" would be ok - then try again.

No, the behaviour of bitcoind has always been to try to filter out floods/spam.
To date, the algorithms used in releases include coin age, output sizes, transaction data size, and fees included.

Quote from: organofcorti on March 10, 2013, 08:20:57 PM

Quote from: Luke-Jr on March 10, 2013, 04:38:50 PM

There is no such thing as "Standard" transaction fee.

This is the tx fee as recommended by the standard client. I didn't make that at all clear, sorry about that.

That varies by branch/version, especially on the miner end.

Quote from: organofcorti on March 10, 2013, 08:20:57 PM

Quote from: Luke-Jr on March 10, 2013, 04:38:50 PM

The chart presupposes bitcoind 0.8 logic.

Could you clarify that response? It presupposes I know what the hell you're talking about Wink

While "maximum block size" has a well-defined meaning, the others do not.
"Minimum block size" by its literal meaning is obviously something like 140 bytes for all pools - so I presume you mean something else.
"Priority block size" makes no sense until you define what "priority" is - and this is (intentionally) not well-defined even in bitcoind.

Topic: [ATTN POOL OPS] List of pools' transaction policies. (Read 3470 times)