{
"subject": "Re: Some testing that I did on the testnetwork, my findings.",
"content": {
"format": "html",
"body": "<div class=\"post\"><div class=\"quoteheader\"><a href=\"https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1668.msg21899#msg21899\">Quote from: ByteCoin on November 13, 2010, 11:55:11 PM</a></div><div class=\"quote\">Of course, if the network is not being flooded and you're not overly concerned about the current transaction getting held up then it's probably worth preferring to use your 0 conf transactions so that you can \"save\" the higher priority coins for when the network <b>is</b> being flooded.<br/></div>You should use at least some priority in case a flood comes along before the next block.<br/><br/>As long as all dependencies have at least 1 conf, if the transaction doesn't have enough priority at first, the dependencies will age until it does.<br/><br/><div class=\"quoteheader\">Quote</div><div class=\"quote\">Gaming the system by including 1000 or so recently turned over BTC to bump the priority as described in my post above still works of course! <br/></div>Or managing how much priority you spend on a transaction. The software would have to know your future plans to know whether to spend your priority now or save it for later. I don't think we'll need to get into that much detail though. There's a wide enough difference between normal users and flooders.<br/><br/>Priority doesn't have to do everything. Once you know there's a flood, you can add -paytxfee=0.01. Hopefully with priority, your transactions before that should be at worst slow, not stuck.</div>"
},
"source": {
"name": "Bitcoin Forum",
"url": "https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1668.msg21959#msg21959"
},
"date": "2010-11-14T16:53:19Z"
}