Remove priority estimation #7730

1. 
   morcos commented at 5:34 pm on March 21, 2016: member

   This removes the functionality behind estimatepriority and estimatesmartpriority. The rpc calls are now deprecated. estimatepriority will return -1 always and estimatesmartpriority will return 1e24 if the mempool is currently limited and -1 otherwise. The result of this behavior is that free transactions (if selected using the now debug option -sendfreetransactions) can be created and sent if the mempool is not currently limited and the transaction’s priority is above the hard coded AllowFree threshold.

   This is effectively the behavior in place already as priority estimates do not appear until confirmation targets over 50 which aren’t currently supported.

   A side effect of this is that now all transactions (that aren’t dependent on unformed inputs) are now considered data points for fee estimation. Even though some transactions may be mined due to their priority instead of fee, this is still safe because the threshold for fee estimation is very high (95%).

2. morcos force-pushed on Mar 21, 2016
3. 
   dcousens commented at 1:45 am on March 22, 2016: contributor

   concept ACK
4. 
   luke-jr commented at 2:54 am on March 22, 2016: member

   So this essentially changes priority from “fully supported for usage” to “fallback only”, at least from the perspective of Core’s wallet. Concept ACK.
5. jonasschnelli added the label TX fees and policy on Mar 22, 2016
6. morcos force-pushed on Mar 22, 2016
7. 
   petertodd commented at 12:36 pm on March 30, 2016: contributor

   utACK https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7730/commits/2f3c306b024f2fa598156c0c6a096ae84a7b0343
8. 
   TheBlueMatt commented at 0:59 am on May 9, 2016: member

   Concept ACK, would be good to see this rebased.
9. 
   MarcoFalke commented at 7:03 am on May 9, 2016: member

   Concept ACK
10. 
    sipa commented at 7:31 pm on May 9, 2016: member

    Needs rebase.
11. morcos force-pushed on May 18, 2016
12. 
    morcos commented at 7:05 pm on May 18, 2016: member

    trivial rebase
13. morcos force-pushed on May 19, 2016
14. 
    petertodd commented at 9:25 am on May 20, 2016: contributor

    utACK https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7730/commits/9a936e3909651eaf8c4b04740db9a0fadcfbe87f
15. in src/policy/fees.cpp: in 9a936e3909 outdated

    490     int nFileBestSeenHeight;
    491     filein >> nFileBestSeenHeight;
    492     feeStats.Read(filein);
    493-    priStats.Read(filein);
    494     nBestSeenHeight = nFileBestSeenHeight;
    495+    if (nVersionRequired < 129900) {
    

    ---

    ---

    

    MarcoFalke commented at 10:48 am on May 20, 2016:

    nit: could be a const.

    ---

    

    MarcoFalke commented at 6:10 pm on September 30, 2016:

    Also needs bump
16. in src/policy/fees.cpp: in 9a936e3909 outdated

    164@@ -166,8 +165,8 @@ double TxConfirmStats::EstimateMedianVal(int confTarget, double sufficientTxVal,
    165         }
    166     }
    167 
    168-    LogPrint("estimatefee", "%3d: For conf success %s %4.2f need %s %s: %12.5g from buckets %8g - %8g  Cur Bucket stats %6.2f%%  %8.1f/(%.1f+%d mempool)\n",
    

    ---

    ---

    

    MarcoFalke commented at 10:49 am on May 20, 2016:

    nit: (unrelated to this pull)

    I think estimatefee is missing from debugCategories.

17. 
    MarcoFalke commented at 10:49 am on May 20, 2016: member

    utACK 9a936e3
18. 
    sipa commented at 11:55 am on August 18, 2016: member

    Rebase please?
19. in src/test/policyestimator_tests.cpp: in 9a936e3909 outdated

    166                 tx.vin[0].prevout.n = 10000*blocknum+100*j+k;
    167                 uint256 hash = tx.GetHash();
    168-                mpool.addUnchecked(hash, entry.Fee(feeV[k/4][j]).Time(GetTime()).Priority(priV[k/4][j]).Height(blocknum).FromTx(tx, &mpool));
    169+                mpool.addUnchecked(hash, entry.Fee(feeV[j]).Time(GetTime()).Priority(0).Height(blocknum).FromTx(tx, &mpool));
    170                 CTransaction btx;
    171                 if (mpool.lookup(hash, btx))
    

    ---

    ---

    

    MarcoFalke commented at 5:44 pm on September 30, 2016:

    Needs merge conflict solved here due to 288d85ddf2e0a0c9d25a23db56052883170466d0
20. 
    sipa commented at 7:16 pm on October 31, 2016: member

    Do we want this for 0.14?
21. Remove priority estimation 70e1dbecd2
22. SQUASHME: slight correction to file versioning aacda2276b
23. morcos force-pushed on Nov 4, 2016
24. 
    morcos commented at 3:54 pm on November 4, 2016: member

    Sorry for the delay.. I rebased including bumping the version numbers, and I just wanted to flag another minor change I made since the previous version had been acked. This seems like the correct way to handle reading old version files.
25. add release notes for removal of priority estimation 9ea4ed9977
26. morcos force-pushed on Nov 4, 2016
27. 
    MarcoFalke commented at 9:43 am on November 5, 2016: member

    utACK 9ea4ed9.

    Mind to reword or squash the “SQUASHME” commit?

28. MarcoFalke added this to the milestone 0.14.0 on Nov 5, 2016
29. laanwj referenced this in commit 3c03dc2cfc on Nov 7, 2016
30. 
    laanwj commented at 12:38 pm on November 7, 2016: member

    Merged (and squashed) via 3c03dc2
31. laanwj closed this on Nov 7, 2016

    ---

32. codablock referenced this in commit 6eaafa86b6 on Jan 13, 2018
33. andvgal referenced this in commit f324c4e8f6 on Jan 6, 2019
34. CryptoCentric referenced this in commit fa60a126b2 on Feb 15, 2019
35. random-zebra referenced this in commit 823ba8e334 on Aug 23, 2020
36. DrahtBot locked this on Sep 8, 2021

Contributors
morcos dcousens luke-jr petertodd TheBlueMatt MarcoFalke sipa laanwj

Labels
TX fees and policy

Milestone
0.14.0