Mike Hearn [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2011-08-18 🗒️ Summary of this message: Receiving a ...
📅 Original date posted:2011-08-18
🗒️ Summary of this message: Receiving a block with an unseen transaction is suspicious, but it can happen if you're a new node. Reporting confirmations differently during chain splits may be safe.
📝 Original message:> Also, receiving a block with a transaction that hasn't been broadcast to
> the network is in itself quite suspect. Are there cases where that
> happens legitimately?
There's no way to obtain the memory pools of your peers today, so if
you're newly started up it can happen that you get blocks with unseen
transactions.
For vectors variant, I wonder if it'd be safe to report the number of
confirmations differently for the duration of a chain split. If you
have a block but a majority of peers relayed a block that split the
chain, subtract 1 from each confirmation reported via RPC.
🗒️ Summary of this message: Receiving a block with an unseen transaction is suspicious, but it can happen if you're a new node. Reporting confirmations differently during chain splits may be safe.
📝 Original message:> Also, receiving a block with a transaction that hasn't been broadcast to
> the network is in itself quite suspect. Are there cases where that
> happens legitimately?
There's no way to obtain the memory pools of your peers today, so if
you're newly started up it can happen that you get blocks with unseen
transactions.
For vectors variant, I wonder if it'd be safe to report the number of
confirmations differently for the duration of a chain split. If you
have a block but a majority of peers relayed a block that split the
chain, subtract 1 from each confirmation reported via RPC.