From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.194] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-4.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1YLp7U-0003mq-LR for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Thu, 12 Feb 2015 08:27:32 +0000 X-ACL-Warn: Received: from wp059.webpack.hosteurope.de ([80.237.132.66]) by sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.76) id 1YLp7S-0005eS-QB for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Thu, 12 Feb 2015 08:27:32 +0000 Received: from [37.143.74.116] (helo=[192.168.0.100]); authenticated by wp059.webpack.hosteurope.de running ExIM with esmtpsa (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) id 1YLp7M-0005GE-Fo; Thu, 12 Feb 2015 09:27:24 +0100 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_AB33DB4F-08AC-4833-9B81-2B014E7DFCEA"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\)) From: Tamas Blummer In-Reply-To: <20150212074509.GC4254@savin.petertodd.org> Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2015 09:27:22 +0100 Message-Id: <8BFAFE6A-F85B-4B89-98A0-CBBCAA67B30B@bitsofproof.com> References: <20150212064719.GA6563@savin.petertodd.org> <7C171F0B-1EF8-4542-8E18-187B2E94DF14@bitsofproof.com> <20150212074509.GC4254@savin.petertodd.org> To: Peter Todd , alex.mizrahi@gmail.com X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6) X-bounce-key: webpack.hosteurope.de; tamas@bitsofproof.com; 1423729650; be7676a7; X-Spam-Score: 1.0 (+) X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net. See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details. -0.0 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/, no trust [80.237.132.66 listed in list.dnswl.org] 1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message X-Headers-End: 1YLp7S-0005eS-QB Cc: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] replace-by-fee v0.10.0rc4 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: Thu, 12 Feb 2015 08:27:32 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_AB33DB4F-08AC-4833-9B81-2B014E7DFCEA Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_C9D52640-A09B-46F2-86C7-46C34D185CDC" --Apple-Mail=_C9D52640-A09B-46F2-86C7-46C34D185CDC Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On Feb 12, 2015, at 9:16 AM, Alex Mizrahi = wrote: > Why don't you use getrawmempool RPC call to synchronize mempool = contents? Since RPC interface does not scale to serve a multi user service. In absence of better alternative, the interfaces used by a proprietary = extension are usually the same as in P2P consensus. POW is used to figure the longest chain and until now broadcasted = transactions were assumed the one and only.=20 These simple rules ensure a consensus between the proprietary stack and = the border router, and that is the consensus I referred to. On Feb 12, 2015, at 8:45 AM, Peter Todd wrote: > IOW, assume every transaction your "border router" gives you is now = the > one and only true transaction, and everything conflicting with it must > go. You are right that the assumption about the one and only transaction = have to be relaxed. Broadcasting=20 double spend only if it is actually replacing an earlier - for whatever = reason, would simplify internal consensus logic . Tamas Blummer Bits of Proof --Apple-Mail=_C9D52640-A09B-46F2-86C7-46C34D185CDC Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii


On Feb 12, = 2015, at 9:16 AM, Alex Mizrahi <alex.mizrahi@gmail.com> = wrote:
Why don't you use = getrawmempool RPC call to synchronize mempool = contents?


Since RPC interface does not scale to serve a multi user = service.
In absence of better alternative, the interfaces used = by a proprietary extension are usually the same as in P2P = consensus.

POW is used to figure the = longest chain and until now broadcasted transactions were assumed the = one and only. 
These simple rules ensure a consensus = between the proprietary stack and the border router, and that is the = consensus I referred to.


On Feb 12, 2015, at 8:45 AM, Peter Todd = <pete@petertodd.org> = wrote:
IOW, assume every transaction = your "border router" gives you is now the
one and only true = transaction, and everything conflicting with it = must
go.

You are right that = the assumption about the one and only transaction have to be relaxed. = Broadcasting 
double spend only if it is actually = replacing an earlier - for whatever reason, would simplify internal = consensus logic .

Tamas = Blummer
Bits of Proof

= --Apple-Mail=_C9D52640-A09B-46F2-86C7-46C34D185CDC-- --Apple-Mail=_AB33DB4F-08AC-4833-9B81-2B014E7DFCEA Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Comment: GPGTools - https://gpgtools.org iQEcBAEBCgAGBQJU3GPqAAoJEPZykcUXcTkcmGMH+gIHn58TpzYVm1zacZcwgXLB sUiQWcOggc8xJtYU/ZK/kC+joNxKJ0HTR7zsJoJd3L9OBf+Pkz62mr3GzoapOJV/ 3Zsoa0halA9hm3hIOzjnT6FNcECjei7xRoxlLjN44Nf8YDQFT6dfi/zyUlPTHaXX Agj8Db71gVE0zvZtdJf0wuOq0SU6wJnc2SriqXD0kk+4Mhc8qOt5qBRimCjTxQP5 GcUIJdPt9w9cX08yCNh3BuJ9NZh5yBkTMmFN6VY2WH1g1FGawFDVr29gSXfBbQLS B4NWa2kIZEcMQ4c61tpfHZA6OzgSmYyfsL2My/+uVbsKXlJm/qaDQMtMvo9Hlpo= =9Vhl -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Apple-Mail=_AB33DB4F-08AC-4833-9B81-2B014E7DFCEA--