Received: from sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.191] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-4.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1TGZ29-0001fO-4m for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Tue, 25 Sep 2012 17:34:57 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com designates 209.85.220.175 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.220.175; envelope-from=timon.elviejo@gmail.com; helo=mail-vc0-f175.google.com; Received: from mail-vc0-f175.google.com ([209.85.220.175]) by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1TGZ28-0000va-8X for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Tue, 25 Sep 2012 17:34:56 +0000 Received: by vcqp1 with SMTP id p1so8653493vcq.34 for ; Tue, 25 Sep 2012 10:34:50 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.221.10.81 with SMTP id oz17mr9610134vcb.67.1348594490631; Tue, 25 Sep 2012 10:34:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.220.175.18 with HTTP; Tue, 25 Sep 2012 10:34:50 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2012 19:34:50 +0200 Message-ID: From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jorge_Tim=F3n?= To: Bitcoin Development Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Spam-Score: -1.6 (-) 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 (timon.elviejo[at]gmail.com) -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record -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: 1TGZ28-0000va-8X Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Large backlog of transactions building up? X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2012 17:34:57 -0000 On 9/23/12, Jeff Garzik wrote: > - provides a deterministic lifetime for a TX; if you KNOW a TX will > disappear 144 blocks (24 hours) after you stop transmitting, then it > is probably safe to initiate recovery procedures and perhaps revise > the transaction > - prevents zombie TXs from littering memory... they hang around, > wasting resources, but never get confirmed I don't understand. Can the chain enforce this number? Why can't clients delete all those transactions right now? On 9/23/12, Gregory Maxwell wrote: > There are bursts of weird transactions (e.g. someone was flooding zero > value txn a few weeks ago; before that there were some enormous series > of double-spend induced orphans), and other sustained loads that quite > a few miners are intentionally excluding. Why clients store transactions that don't obey the current rules of the chain at all?