Received: from sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.193] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-4.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1RBQdZ-0005E2-NM for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Wed, 05 Oct 2011 12:31:49 +0000 X-ACL-Warn: Received: from backup-server.nordu.net ([193.10.252.66]) by sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.76) id 1RBQdY-0003s0-9z for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Wed, 05 Oct 2011 12:31:49 +0000 Received: from [192.168.0.8] (2508ds5-oebr.0.fullrate.dk [95.166.54.87]) (authenticated bits=0) by backup-server.nordu.net (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p95CVdcf015267 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO) for ; Wed, 5 Oct 2011 14:31:41 +0200 (CEST) From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Michael_Gr=F8nager?= Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2011 14:31:40 +0200 Message-Id: To: Bitcoin Dev Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1244.3) X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1244.3) X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net. See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details. X-Headers-End: 1RBQdY-0003s0-9z Subject: [Bitcoin-development] vtxPrev 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: Wed, 05 Oct 2011 12:31:49 -0000 Hi ! I am looking into enabling a split between thin clients holding the = wallet and server(s) holding the blocks and txdb. To that end I am considering to simplify the WalletTx a bit and I came = across the vtxPrev in the code. As I see it vtxPrev is only used for = keeping a list of supporting transactions to enable resubmit of these in = case the transaction it self and all its supporting transactions are = lost due to some blocks becoming invalid as they are part of a dead-end = part of the chain. However... The vtxPrev stores 3 transactions back, but as transactions need 7 block = to maturity and respendability isn't it overkill - I mean it is highly = unlikely that a transaction gets invalid after 7 confirmations and the = vtxPrev are guarding against resubmission of transaction more than 21 = confirmations back. Further, we cannot guarantee that the transaction = owner is online at the time and the money could have been re-spent for = others anyway. So bottom line: Do we need the vtxPrev at all ? Or did I miss out something ? Cheers, Michael