Jeff Garzik [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2014-08-05 📝 Original message:I feel like a lot of this ...

📅 Original date posted:2014-08-05
📝 Original message:I feel like a lot of this will be driven by implementation, and costs of
changing the implementation. Additional look-backs are of course doable,
but they incur some disk I/O costs. The fields available in memory for
each mempool TX are

uint256 tx_hash; // hash of next field
CTransaction tx;
int64_t nFee; // Cached to avoid expensive parent-transaction lookups
size_t nTxSize; // ... and avoid recomputing tx size
int64_t nTime; // Local time when entering the mempool
double dPriority; // Priority when entering the mempool
unsigned int nHeight; // Chain height when entering the mempool

As a first pass, we may prune the mempool without additional db lookups
quite easily based on time criteria. Or, additional in-memory indexes may
be constructed to maintain hashes ordered by priority/fees.

Those techniques seem likely to be attempted before resorting to looking
back two or three TXs deep at coin age -- which I admit is an interesting
metric.

--
Jeff Garzik
Bitcoin core developer and open source evangelist
BitPay, Inc. https://bitpay.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20140805/aeb32c14/attachment.html>;