On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 09:27:22AM +0100, Tamas Blummer wrote:
> On Feb 12, 2015, at 9:16 AM, Alex Mizrahi <alex.mizr...@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.

If a proprietary stack has problems with replace-by-fee then it's probably 
succeptible to malicious attack because an attacker could just broadcast
one transaction to the network and then replace it when they are able to
mine a block themselves.

> On Feb 12, 2015, at 8:45 AM, Peter Todd <p...@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 .

Dive into the World of Parallel Programming. The Go Parallel Website,
sponsored by Intel and developed in partnership with Slashdot Media, is your
hub for all things parallel software development, from weekly thought
leadership blogs to news, videos, case studies, tutorials and more. Take a
look and join the conversation now. http://goparallel.sourceforge.net/
Bitcoin-development mailing list

Reply via email to