1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
|
Received: from sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.192]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-4.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <gmaxwell@gmail.com>) id 1TGZIu-0002ed-Ie
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Tue, 25 Sep 2012 17:52:16 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
designates 209.85.223.175 as permitted sender)
client-ip=209.85.223.175; envelope-from=gmaxwell@gmail.com;
helo=mail-ie0-f175.google.com;
Received: from mail-ie0-f175.google.com ([209.85.223.175])
by sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1TGZIt-0003kR-MN
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Tue, 25 Sep 2012 17:52:16 +0000
Received: by iebc13 with SMTP id c13so7599686ieb.34
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Tue, 25 Sep 2012 10:52:10 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.50.157.234 with SMTP id wp10mr9015582igb.5.1348595530247; Tue,
25 Sep 2012 10:52:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.64.34.4 with HTTP; Tue, 25 Sep 2012 10:52:10 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAGQP0AHdmyMhrOA1mMqjxobu8S0r6OnvducV7H=HFaiv-PR+rw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CANEZrP2r6sVC_63xx6U7XLbFkukrFEhq-mGAse3vHJ6nf3Q1cw@mail.gmail.com>
<CA+8xBpen9o3Oji0ePsbU-ZQCSpFO+tAZt63LaOsR30KULYbUhQ@mail.gmail.com>
<CAAS2fgR7yiyTWyuwAqxsnAb-xv9bmBFUxDwJhEkRH1PCP=pzJw@mail.gmail.com>
<CANEZrP03R_6nQQ-_uxdF++g-ON4ynsNBTDFqmVt2ZnLy49GqZg@mail.gmail.com>
<CAGQP0AHdmyMhrOA1mMqjxobu8S0r6OnvducV7H=HFaiv-PR+rw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2012 13:52:10 -0400
Message-ID: <CAAS2fgRmS0ssKJvJsrhpbmj4awViexhQbQJB-TUU1gUQ8TzOeg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell@gmail.com>
To: =?UTF-8?B?Sm9yZ2UgVGltw7Nu?= <timon.elviejo@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Spam-Score: -1.1 (-)
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
(gmaxwell[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
0.5 AWL AWL: From: address is in the auto white-list
X-Headers-End: 1TGZIt-0003kR-MN
Cc: Bitcoin Development <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
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: <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: Tue, 25 Sep 2012 17:52:16 -0000
On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 1:34 PM, Jorge Tim=C3=B3n <timon.elviejo@gmail.com>=
wrote:
> On 9/23/12, Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@exmulti.com> 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?
This is discussion about transactions which are not in the chain yet.
> On 9/23/12, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell@gmail.com> 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?
The double spending transaction is not stored=E2=80=94 which is, in fact, t=
he
problem which creates these huge chain. When a transaction depending
on the doublespend is received we do not know its parent (because we
dropped it because it was a rule violation) so we keep it around as an
orphan hoping its parent arrives.
The software could maintain a cache of rejected txids to consult for
orphan txn's parents, but it would need to be dropped any time there
is a reorg so I don't know how useful it would be.
|
