From: Patrick Strateman <patrick.strateman@gmail•com>
To: bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Do we really need a mempool? (for relay nodes)
Date: Sat, 18 Jul 2015 12:46:01 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <55AAACF9.90007@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20150718185259.GA3477@muck>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1964 bytes --]
Relay nodes do not need a mempool, but do need some mechanism to avoid
DoS issues.
Wallet nodes can use the mempool for fee estimation (in addition to
looking at past blocks).
On 07/18/2015 11:52 AM, Peter Todd via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> As in, do relay nodes need to keep a record of the transactions they've
> relayed? Strictly speaking, the answer is no: one a tx is relayed modulo
> DoS concerns the entire thing can be discarded by the node. (unconfirmed
> txs spending other unconfirmed txs can be handled by creating packages
> of transactions, evaluated as a whole)
>
> To mitigate DoS concerns, we of course have to have some per-UTXO limit
> on bandwidth relayed, but that task can be accomplished by simply
> maintaining some kind of per-UTXO record of bandwidth used. For instance
> if the weighted fee and fee/KB were recorded, and forced to - say -
> double for each additional tx relayed that spent a given UTXO you would
> have a clear and simple upper limit of lifetime bandwidth. Equally it's
> easy to limit bandwidth moment to moment by asking peers for highest
> fee/KB transactions they advertise first, stopping when our bandwidth
> limit is reached.
>
> You probably could even remove IsStandard() pretty much entirely with
> the right increasingly expensive "replacement" policy, relying on it
> alone to provide anti-DoS. Obviously this would simplify some of the
> debates around mining policy! This could even be re-used for scalable a
> general-purpose messaging network paid by coin ownership if the UTXO set
> is split up, and some kind of expiration over time policy is
> implemented.
>
> Miners of course would still want to have a mempool, but that codebase
> may prove simpler if it doesn't have to work double-duty for relaying as
> well.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2588 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-07-18 19:46 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-07-18 18:52 Peter Todd
2015-07-18 19:46 ` Patrick Strateman [this message]
2015-07-19 8:59 ` odinn
2015-07-20 22:14 ` Jorge Timón
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=55AAACF9.90007@gmail.com \
--to=patrick.strateman@gmail$(echo .)com \
--cc=bitcoin-dev@lists$(echo .)linuxfoundation.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox