From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 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 ) 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 ; 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: References: Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2012 13:52:10 -0400 Message-ID: From: Gregory Maxwell To: =?UTF-8?B?Sm9yZ2UgVGltw7Nu?= 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 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: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-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 = wrote: > On 9/23/12, Jeff Garzik 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 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.