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
|
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 <timon.elviejo@gmail.com>) 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 <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
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: <CANEZrP03R_6nQQ-_uxdF++g-ON4ynsNBTDFqmVt2ZnLy49GqZg@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>
Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2012 19:34:50 +0200
Message-ID: <CAGQP0AHdmyMhrOA1mMqjxobu8S0r6OnvducV7H=HFaiv-PR+rw@mail.gmail.com>
From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jorge_Tim=F3n?= <timon.elviejo@gmail.com>
To: Bitcoin Development <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
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: <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 17:34:57 -0000
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?
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?
|
