From: Mike Hearn <mike@plan99•net>
To: Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell@gmail•com>
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists•sourceforge.net>,
kjj <bitcoin-devel@jerviss•org>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Feedback requested: "reject" p2p message
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2013 13:01:37 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CANEZrP3hMe_1moKDZKjxcB_okJqzmDJprnskMnts59ED18JsEg@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAAS2fgSAtjB0EMgBG0AphWADxCwLhutGFJEx74mLC=zCEY3QAA@mail.gmail.com>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1323 bytes --]
On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 6:13 PM, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell@gmail•com> wrote:
> If a node is using priority queued rate limiting for its relaying then
> it might "accept" a transaction from you, but have it fall out of its
> memory pool (due to higher priority txn arriving, or getting
> restarted, etc.) before it ever gets a chance to send it on to any
> other peers.
>
That's a good point, however, I would hope that this fairly trivial race
condition can be resolved. There's no requirement that a transaction be
placed into a buffer from which it can be removed before relaying. After
relaying - sure. But the gap of a few seconds between that shouldn't cause
any issues to eliminate.
I believe Gavin's smartfees branch adds mempool persistence to disk, so
restarting nodes won't clear the mempool in future. Or at least that's a
part of the longer term plan once mempool limiting is done.
> Finding out that it rejected is still useful information, but even
> assuming all nodes are honest and well behaved I don't think you could
> count on its absence to be sure of forwarding.
>
I think measuring propagation will be a part of bitcoin wallets for the
forseeable future, although if all nodes reject that allows for a more
responsive and more helpful UI than just waiting for some arbitrary timeout
to elapse.
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1946 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-10-31 12:01 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 27+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-10-26 0:34 Gavin Andresen
2013-10-26 1:01 ` Jean-Paul Kogelman
2013-10-26 2:00 ` Gavin
2013-10-26 4:32 ` kjj
2013-10-27 14:32 ` Mike Hearn
2013-10-27 14:39 ` Luke-Jr
2013-10-27 14:50 ` Mike Hearn
2013-10-30 17:13 ` Gregory Maxwell
2013-10-31 12:01 ` Mike Hearn [this message]
2013-10-27 22:52 ` Gavin Andresen
2013-10-28 2:52 ` kjj
2013-10-28 9:26 ` Andreas Schildbach
2013-10-28 9:32 ` Gregory Maxwell
2013-10-29 5:37 ` Gavin Andresen
2013-10-29 8:55 ` Warren Togami Jr.
2013-10-29 9:12 ` Peter Todd
2013-10-29 9:52 ` Mike Hearn
2013-10-29 10:14 ` Peter Todd
2013-10-29 11:38 ` Peter Todd
2013-10-29 12:32 ` Mike Hearn
2013-10-29 16:35 ` [Bitcoin-development] On soft-forks and hard-forks Peter Todd
2013-10-30 2:01 ` [Bitcoin-development] Feedback requested: "reject" p2p message Gavin Andresen
2013-10-30 8:24 ` Mike Hearn
2013-10-30 9:05 ` Mark Friedenbach
2013-10-30 10:26 ` Mike Hearn
2013-10-28 2:59 ` Luke-Jr
2013-10-28 3:02 ` Pieter Wuille
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=CANEZrP3hMe_1moKDZKjxcB_okJqzmDJprnskMnts59ED18JsEg@mail.gmail.com \
--to=mike@plan99$(echo .)net \
--cc=bitcoin-devel@jerviss$(echo .)org \
--cc=bitcoin-development@lists$(echo .)sourceforge.net \
--cc=gmaxwell@gmail$(echo .)com \
/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