Re: [bitcoin-dev] Trying to patch Core ZMQ "rawtx" topic to only publish unconfirmed transactions: How?

[LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH <willtech@live.com.au>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 5075 bytes --]

Wasn't this already not a problem because you can check if it was confirmed? The transaction is not finalised in the mempool it is just speculation of a transaction, so it makes sense to emit when the transaction is confirmed.  Just already check..

> 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.

KING JAMES HRMH
Great British Empire

Regards,
The Australian
LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH (& HMRH)
of Hougun Manor & Glencoe & British Empire
MR. Damian A. James Williamson
Wills

et al.


Willtech
www.willtech.com.au
www.go-overt.com
duigco.org DUIGCO API
and other projects


m. 0487135719
f. +61261470192


This email does not constitute a general advice. Please disregard this email if misdelivered.
________________________________
From: bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev-bounces@lists.linuxfoundation.org> on behalf of 0xB10C via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Sent: Monday, 29 November 2021 8:32 PM
To: Ali Sherief <ali@notatether.com>; Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Trying to patch Core ZMQ "rawtx" topic to only publish unconfirmed transactions: How?

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.

[0]: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/23624
[1]:
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/23624/files#diff-ac4b2d3a8de2c4dd41ad9d75505ea6ce4dc87a476710a9ebee8acf9bebf5cca2L146-L148


Best,
0xB10C



On 11/26/21 5:56 PM, Ali Sherief via bitcoin-dev wrote:
>
> This has also been posted on Bitcointalk
> forum: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5373341.msg58539261#msg58539261
> <https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5373341.msg58539261#msg58539261> I
> 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-configure-the-bitcoin-daemon-to-only-broadcast-unconfirmed-tra
> <https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/52848/is-it-possible-to-configure-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 build:
>
> 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, Jonas 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).
>
> - Ali Sherief
>
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev


_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 8243 bytes --]