To: Ali Sherief <ali@notatether.com>,
 Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
References: <i1UxLDIyGhAt1KS5mHXaZ1cjhjEDd1bwVm-GZjrCRpye8z4O9zuwkw1CNa_UER12p79KknIKbT5hjjW5e0hwV0fWlB0kag6mHAF5f8K1y2k=@notatether.com>
From: 0xB10C <0xb10c@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <6dbaa89c-b658-e239-9f28-5f1609b8e746@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2021 10:32:15 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/78.13.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <i1UxLDIyGhAt1KS5mHXaZ1cjhjEDd1bwVm-GZjrCRpye8z4O9zuwkw1CNa_UER12p79KknIKbT5hjjW5e0hwV0fWlB0kag6mHAF5f8K1y2k=@notatether.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Language: en-US
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Trying to patch Core ZMQ "rawtx" topic to only
 publish unconfirmed transactions: How?
Precedence: list

Hi Ali,

I've run into this multiple times myself. I've opened a draft PR [0]
adding a rawmempooltx publisher.

You're right. In zmq/zmqnotificationinterface.cpp the
CZMQNotificationInterface is notified about TransactionAddedToMempool.
Currently, this calls NotifyTransaction() (the publisher with the rawtx
topic) and NotifyTransactionAcceptance() (the publisher with the
sequence topic)[1]. I've added a call to a new
NotifyMempoolTransaction() function (the publisher with the rawmempooltx
topic).

I'd find a mempool transaction publisher with both the raw transaction
and transaction fee useful too. However, this requires changes to the
chain notifications in interfaces/chain.h.=C2=A0

[0]: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/23624
[1]:
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/23624/files#diff-ac4b2d3a8de2c4dd=
41ad9d75505ea6ce4dc87a476710a9ebee8acf9bebf5cca2L146-L148=C2=A0


Best,
0xB10C



On 11/26/21 5:56 PM, Ali Sherief via bitcoin-dev wrote:
>
> This has also been posted on Bitcointalk
> forum:=C2=A0https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3D5373341.msg585392=
61#msg58539261
> <https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3D5373341.msg58539261#msg58539=
261>=C2=A0I
> have republished it here hoping someone more knowledgeable can post
> some insight about this.
> ----
> It appears that the ZeroMQ topic I'm listening to, "rawtx", not only
> emits a raw transaction when it appears on the mempool, but once it's
> already confirmed too.
>
> This messes with my software, causing it to add txids, addresses, etc.
> a second time inside arrays (this means that the same transaction is
> received twice in total).
>
> Array de-duping is not a viable solution long-term (because the array
> will quickly grow to be big eventually and then this has to happen
> every time a new element is added), so I'm trying to nip the problem
> from the source by instructing Core to only publish unconfirmed
> bitcoin transactions.
>
> According to
> https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/52848/is-it-possible-to-con=
figure-the-bitcoin-daemon-to-only-broadcast-unconfirmed-tra
> <https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/52848/is-it-possible-to-co=
nfigure-the-bitcoin-daemon-to-only-broadcast-unconfirmed-tra>
> , it is not possible to configure this from a configuration or
> command-line option. The source code must directly be edited. But
> since the codebase has changed greatly, the proposed solution no
> longer works.
>
> ----
>
> So basically, I know that something inside
> src/zmq/zmqnotificationinterface.cpp needs to be patched, but I'm not
> sure which function, or how to do it. Because I only need unconfirmed
> transactions to be published on ZeroMQ rawtx and not confirmed ones,
> it's one of the following functions that I need to patch for my own bui=
ld:
>
> CZMQNotificationInterface::TransactionRemovedFromMempool
> void CZMQNotificationInterface::BlockDisconnected
>
> Both of these call NotifyTransaction() method which I assume fires a
> message on "rawtx" channel.
>
> In the Stack Exchange question I linked above,=C2=A0Jonas Schnelli
> suggested adding an `if (!pblock)` check, but that was several years
> ago and the function he was referencing no longer exists.
>
> But I still wonder if the pblock check is still applicable in the
> present day (i.e. if it's indicating a block the transaction is inside)=
=2E
>
> - Ali Sherief
>
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev