Rebroad (sourceforge) [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2012-05-05 📝 Original message:Hi, > > Looking at: ...
📅 Original date posted:2012-05-05
📝 Original message:Hi,
>
>
Looking at:
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/3e52aaf2121d597ab1ed012b65e37f9cb5f2754e#src/main.cpp-P52
It appears that 8 months ago the code was changed to DoS(100) nodes sending
on txs that use individual txs as the coinbase. Does this mean txs that are
0 confirmed?
If so, then, is this a risk of a network split, as I'm sure I've read about
services popping up using bitcoin that are specifically allowing 0
confirmed transactions, and therefore there must be peers around that
accept these.
Or have I misread the code?
Cheers,
Ed
PS. Would a BIP have been applicable for the above-mentioned change?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20120505/e8db28b2/attachment.html>
📝 Original message:Hi,
>
>
Looking at:
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/3e52aaf2121d597ab1ed012b65e37f9cb5f2754e#src/main.cpp-P52
It appears that 8 months ago the code was changed to DoS(100) nodes sending
on txs that use individual txs as the coinbase. Does this mean txs that are
0 confirmed?
If so, then, is this a risk of a network split, as I'm sure I've read about
services popping up using bitcoin that are specifically allowing 0
confirmed transactions, and therefore there must be peers around that
accept these.
Or have I misread the code?
Cheers,
Ed
PS. Would a BIP have been applicable for the above-mentioned change?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20120505/e8db28b2/attachment.html>