Received: from sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.192]
	helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
	by sfs-ml-1.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
	(envelope-from <alex.mizrahi@gmail.com>) id 1YLoxK-0007R5-F7
	for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
	Thu, 12 Feb 2015 08:17:02 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
	designates 74.125.82.173 as permitted sender)
	client-ip=74.125.82.173; envelope-from=alex.mizrahi@gmail.com;
	helo=mail-we0-f173.google.com; 
Received: from mail-we0-f173.google.com ([74.125.82.173])
	by sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
	(Exim 4.76) id 1YLoxJ-0008Nz-KB
	for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
	Thu, 12 Feb 2015 08:17:02 +0000
Received: by mail-we0-f173.google.com with SMTP id w55so8377036wes.4
	for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
	Thu, 12 Feb 2015 00:16:55 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.194.187.236 with SMTP id fv12mr778422wjc.131.1423729015545; 
	Thu, 12 Feb 2015 00:16:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.27.148.13 with HTTP; Thu, 12 Feb 2015 00:16:55 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <7C171F0B-1EF8-4542-8E18-187B2E94DF14@bitsofproof.com>
References: <20150212064719.GA6563@savin.petertodd.org>
	<7C171F0B-1EF8-4542-8E18-187B2E94DF14@bitsofproof.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2015 10:16:55 +0200
Message-ID: <CAE28kUR3UrYKnZ2L4F=FMq-7O-uBOb2Jy7HivXFo4OniK5Rz5w@mail.gmail.com>
From: Alex Mizrahi <alex.mizrahi@gmail.com>
To: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7bea40cc3a665f050edfbec8
X-Spam-Score: -0.6 (/)
X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net.
	See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details.
	-1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for
	sender-domain
	0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider
	(alex.mizrahi[at]gmail.com)
	-0.0 SPF_PASS               SPF: sender matches SPF record
	1.0 HTML_MESSAGE           BODY: HTML included in message
	-0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from
	author's domain
	0.1 DKIM_SIGNED            Message has a DKIM or DK signature,
	not necessarily valid
	-0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature
X-Headers-End: 1YLoxJ-0008Nz-KB
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] replace-by-fee v0.10.0rc4
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: <bitcoin-development.lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
	<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_name=bitcoin-development>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
	<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2015 08:17:03 -0000

--047d7bea40cc3a665f050edfbec8
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

> To remain useful as border router, the replace-by-fee patched core should
> only relay double spend if it actually replaces an earlier transaction, as
> otherwise the replace logic that is according to your commit more than just
> fee comparison, would have to be replicated in the proprietary stack and
> mempool might get out of sync with that of the border router.
>

Why don't you use getrawmempool RPC call to synchronize mempool contents?

--047d7bea40cc3a665f050edfbec8
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><div=
>=C2=A0</div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px =
0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-=
style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><div style=3D"word-wrap:break-word"><div>To r=
emain useful as border router, the replace-by-fee patched core should only =
relay double spend if it actually replaces an earlier transaction, as other=
wise the replace logic that is according to your commit more than just fee =
comparison, would have to be replicated in the proprietary stack and mempoo=
l might get out of sync with that of the border router.=C2=A0</div></div></=
blockquote><div><br></div><div>Why don&#39;t you use getrawmempool RPC call=
 to synchronize mempool contents?<br></div></div></div></div>

--047d7bea40cc3a665f050edfbec8--