Received: from sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.194] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-2.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from <rebroad@gmail.com>) id 1SQaP6-0007Av-7i for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Sat, 05 May 2012 08:31:48 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com designates 209.85.212.175 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.212.175; envelope-from=rebroad@gmail.com; helo=mail-wi0-f175.google.com; Received: from mail-wi0-f175.google.com ([209.85.212.175]) by sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1SQaP3-0002gZ-VA for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Sat, 05 May 2012 08:31:48 +0000 Received: by wibhn6 with SMTP id hn6so1842252wib.10 for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>; Sat, 05 May 2012 01:31:39 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.216.142.226 with SMTP id i76mr5873335wej.28.1336206699859; Sat, 05 May 2012 01:31:39 -0700 (PDT) Sender: rebroad@gmail.com Received: by 10.223.6.18 with HTTP; Sat, 5 May 2012 01:31:39 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <CAFBxzADBoEU9ncCxsHg7_tMz_WmAnhDrh_m8kWw4Nb5FykjfEg@mail.gmail.com> References: <CAFBxzADBoEU9ncCxsHg7_tMz_WmAnhDrh_m8kWw4Nb5FykjfEg@mail.gmail.com> Date: Sat, 5 May 2012 09:31:39 +0100 X-Google-Sender-Auth: tEAX7pjQ_myP2wR-IEDJbzhDPRA Message-ID: <CAFBxzAADB9PvbzQpH8R0CSH5yTy-9bG8Bf=gRjDnbPDdWXsGsw@mail.gmail.com> From: "Rebroad (sourceforge)" <rebroad+sourceforge.net@gmail.com> To: "bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net" <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=0016e6daa637b10f4c04bf45dd6f 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 (rebroad[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: 1SQaP3-0002gZ-VA Subject: [Bitcoin-development] Potential network split when individual tx used as coinbase? 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: Sat, 05 May 2012 08:31:48 -0000 --0016e6daa637b10f4c04bf45dd6f Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Hi, > > Looking at: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/3e52aaf2121d597ab1ed012b65e37f9cb5f2754e#src/main.cpp-P52 It appears that 8 months ago the code was changed to DoS(100) nodes sending on txs that use individual txs as the coinbase. Does this mean txs that are 0 confirmed? If so, then, is this a risk of a network split, as I'm sure I've read about services popping up using bitcoin that are specifically allowing 0 confirmed transactions, and therefore there must be peers around that accept these. Or have I misread the code? Cheers, Ed PS. Would a BIP have been applicable for the above-mentioned change? --0016e6daa637b10f4c04bf45dd6f Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi,<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left= :1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"> </blockquote><div><br></div><div>Looking at:=A0<a href=3D"https://github.co= m/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/3e52aaf2121d597ab1ed012b65e37f9cb5f2754e#src/main.= cpp-P52" target=3D"_blank">https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/3e52aa= f2121d597ab1ed012b65e37f9cb5f2754e#src/main.cpp-P52</a></div> <div><br></div><div>It appears that 8 months ago the code was changed to Do= S(100) nodes sending on txs that use individual txs as the coinbase. Does t= his mean txs that are 0 confirmed?</div><div><br></div><div>If so, then, is= this a risk of a network split, as I'm sure I've read about servic= es popping up using bitcoin that are specifically allowing 0 confirmed tran= sactions, and therefore there must be peers around that accept these.</div> <div><br></div><div>Or have I misread the code?</div><div><br></div><div>Ch= eers,</div><div>Ed</div><div><br></div><div>PS. Would a BIP have been appli= cable for the=A0above-mentioned change?=A0</div> <br> --0016e6daa637b10f4c04bf45dd6f--