[Bitcoin-development] Potential network split when individual tx used as coinbase?
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? -- Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/___ Bitcoin-development mailing list Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
[Bitcoin-development] free tx rate limiter potentially causes more traffic not less?
I recently was dabbling with AskFor() and changing the time waited from 2 minutes to 10 seconds (I think perhaps this value may change in future versions when network tuning is implemented). I noticed that, when used with the -limitfreerelay option that is causes significant increase in traffic between peers. This is because the tx gets asked for (from all connected peers usually), but AlwaysHave never becomes true as it's never stored, always rejected, so it effectively getdatas the transaction from every single connected peer. Would it perhaps be better to set up a memory pool for rejected txs and blocks (perhaps keeping only the hash) so that these rejected items can continue being ignored? I hope these observations are ok - I consider myself at the trying to understand the code/protocol/algorithm stage so might sometimes make false assumptions of what the code intends to do. Ed -- Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/___ Bitcoin-development mailing list Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
Re: [Bitcoin-development] Potential network split when individual tx used as coinbase?
On Sat, May 05, 2012 at 09:31:39AM +0100, Rebroad (sourceforge) wrote: 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? Or have I misread the code? I think so, see my comment there. -- Pieter -- Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ ___ Bitcoin-development mailing list Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
