rich1.0npub1sa86gng3pvs3jgyt5majwcrhn8ck5qxgy9pjqxkh79u638cd7dys28y304https://nostr.ae/npub1sa86gng3pvs3jgyt5majwcrhn8ck5qxgy9pjqxkh79u638cd7dys28y304njumphttps://nostr.ae📅 Original date posted:2015-07-23 📝 Original message:Doesn't matter. It's not going to be perfect given the block time variance among other factors but it's far more workable than guessing whether or not your transaction is going to end up in a block at all. jp > On Jul 24, 2015, at 8:53 AM, Peter Todd <pete at petertodd.org> wrote: > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA256 > > > >> On 23 July 2015 20:49:20 GMT-04:00, Jean-Paul Kogelman via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: >> >> And it's obvious how a size cap would interfere with such a QoS scheme. >> Miners wouldn't be able to deliver the below guarantees if they have to >> start excluding transactions. > > As mining is a random, poisson process, obviously giving guarantees without a majority of hashing power isn't possible. > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > > iQE9BAEBCAAnIBxQZXRlciBUb2RkIDxwZXRlQHBldGVydG9kZC5vcmc+BQJVsYyK > AAoJEMCF8hzn9Lnc47AH/28WlecQLb37CiJpcvXO9tC4zqYEodurtB9nBHTSJrug > VIEXZW53pSTdd3vv2qpGIlHxuYP8QmDSATztwQLuN6XWEszz7TO8MXBfLxKqZyGu > i83WqSGjMAfwqjl0xR1G7PJgt4+E+0vaAFZc98vLCgZnedbiXRVtTGjhofG1jjTc > DFMwMZHP0eqWTwtWwqUvnA7PTFHxdqoJruY/t1KceN+JDbBCJWMxBDswU64FXcVH > 0ecsk9nhLMyylBX/2v4HjCXyayocH8jQ+FpLSP0xxERyS+f1npFX9cxFMq24uXqn > PcnZfLfaSJ6gMbmhbYG5wYDKN3u732j7dLzSJnMW6jk= > =LY1+ > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- >