Tamas Blummer [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2015-02-12 📝 Original message:On Feb 12, 2015, at 9:16 ...
📅 Original date posted:2015-02-12
📝 Original message:On Feb 12, 2015, at 9:16 AM, Alex Mizrahi <alex.mizrahi at gmail.com> wrote:
> Why don't you use getrawmempool RPC call to synchronize mempool contents?
Since RPC interface does not scale to serve a multi user service.
In absence of better alternative, the interfaces used by a proprietary extension are usually the same as in P2P consensus.
POW is used to figure the longest chain and until now broadcasted transactions were assumed the one and only.
These simple rules ensure a consensus between the proprietary stack and the border router, and that is the consensus I referred to.
On Feb 12, 2015, at 8:45 AM, Peter Todd <pete at petertodd.org> wrote:
> IOW, assume every transaction your "border router" gives you is now the
> one and only true transaction, and everything conflicting with it must
> go.
You are right that the assumption about the one and only transaction have to be relaxed. Broadcasting
double spend only if it is actually replacing an earlier - for whatever reason, would simplify internal consensus logic .
Tamas Blummer
Bits of Proof
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150212/69bb8178/attachment.html>;
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 496 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150212/69bb8178/attachment.sig>;
📝 Original message:On Feb 12, 2015, at 9:16 AM, Alex Mizrahi <alex.mizrahi at gmail.com> wrote:
> Why don't you use getrawmempool RPC call to synchronize mempool contents?
Since RPC interface does not scale to serve a multi user service.
In absence of better alternative, the interfaces used by a proprietary extension are usually the same as in P2P consensus.
POW is used to figure the longest chain and until now broadcasted transactions were assumed the one and only.
These simple rules ensure a consensus between the proprietary stack and the border router, and that is the consensus I referred to.
On Feb 12, 2015, at 8:45 AM, Peter Todd <pete at petertodd.org> wrote:
> IOW, assume every transaction your "border router" gives you is now the
> one and only true transaction, and everything conflicting with it must
> go.
You are right that the assumption about the one and only transaction have to be relaxed. Broadcasting
double spend only if it is actually replacing an earlier - for whatever reason, would simplify internal consensus logic .
Tamas Blummer
Bits of Proof
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150212/69bb8178/attachment.html>;
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 496 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150212/69bb8178/attachment.sig>;