From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.191] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-1.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1Vbqwa-0001wt-6Z for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 12:01:44 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com designates 209.85.214.180 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.214.180; envelope-from=mh.in.england@gmail.com; helo=mail-ob0-f180.google.com; Received: from mail-ob0-f180.google.com ([209.85.214.180]) by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1VbqwZ-0007nW-9O for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 12:01:44 +0000 Received: by mail-ob0-f180.google.com with SMTP id wo20so2876013obc.39 for ; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 05:01:37 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.60.76.72 with SMTP id i8mr2328869oew.11.1383220897695; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 05:01:37 -0700 (PDT) Sender: mh.in.england@gmail.com Received: by 10.76.156.42 with HTTP; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 05:01:37 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <274a1888-276c-4aa6-a818-68f548fbe0fa@me.com> <9DCDB8F6-E3B2-426B-A41E-087E66B3821A@gmail.com> <526B45DB.2030200@jerviss.org> Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2013 13:01:37 +0100 X-Google-Sender-Auth: jcVyLu0GG2NlZo0fPf873P0yqdM Message-ID: From: Mike Hearn To: Gregory Maxwell Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b33d54840d48604ea083618 X-Spam-Score: -0.5 (/) 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 (mh.in.england[at]gmail.com) -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record 1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message 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: 1VbqwZ-0007nW-9O Cc: Bitcoin Dev , kjj Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Feedback requested: "reject" p2p message 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, 31 Oct 2013 12:01:44 -0000 --047d7b33d54840d48604ea083618 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 6:13 PM, Gregory Maxwell wrote: > If a node is using priority queued rate limiting for its relaying then > it might "accept" a transaction from you, but have it fall out of its > memory pool (due to higher priority txn arriving, or getting > restarted, etc.) before it ever gets a chance to send it on to any > other peers. > That's a good point, however, I would hope that this fairly trivial race condition can be resolved. There's no requirement that a transaction be placed into a buffer from which it can be removed before relaying. After relaying - sure. But the gap of a few seconds between that shouldn't cause any issues to eliminate. I believe Gavin's smartfees branch adds mempool persistence to disk, so restarting nodes won't clear the mempool in future. Or at least that's a part of the longer term plan once mempool limiting is done. > Finding out that it rejected is still useful information, but even > assuming all nodes are honest and well behaved I don't think you could > count on its absence to be sure of forwarding. > I think measuring propagation will be a part of bitcoin wallets for the forseeable future, although if all nodes reject that allows for a more responsive and more helpful UI than just waiting for some arbitrary timeout to elapse. --047d7b33d54840d48604ea083618 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 6:13 PM, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwe= ll@gmail.com> wrote:
If a node is using priority queued rate limiting for its relaying= then
it might "accept" a transaction from you, but have it fall out of= its
memory pool (due to higher priority txn arriving, or getting
restarted, etc.) before it ever gets a chance to send it on to any
other peers.

That's a good point, h= owever, I would hope that this fairly trivial race condition can be resolve= d. There's no requirement that a transaction be placed into a buffer fr= om which it can be removed before relaying. After relaying - sure. But the = gap of a few seconds between that shouldn't cause any issues to elimina= te.

I believe Gavin's smartfees branch adds mempool per= sistence to disk, so restarting nodes won't clear the mempool in future= . Or at least that's a part of the longer term plan once mempool limiti= ng is done.
=C2=A0
Finding out that it rejecte= d is still useful information, but even
assuming all nodes are honest and well behaved I don't think you could<= br> count on its absence to be sure of forwarding.

I think measuring p= ropagation will be a part of bitcoin wallets for the forseeable future, alt= hough if all nodes reject that allows for a more responsive and more helpfu= l UI than just waiting for some arbitrary timeout to elapse.
--047d7b33d54840d48604ea083618--