Rebroad (sourceforge) [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2012-05-05 📝 Original message:I recently was dabbling ...
📅 Original date posted:2012-05-05
📝 Original message: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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <
http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20120505/e43e613f/attachment.html>
Published at
2023-06-07 10:08:03Event JSON
{
"id": "681a031ce043b64ebe741e1d298c32f3231756791c810eee87d6785caade0156",
"pubkey": "624c501b2cfe965bd947828b1e2703bc4899d913d5aa28f30ee6d91f69f47155",
"created_at": 1686132483,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"2947178992d1af14e95d69ef78b37d1ca4885e9e4e4c7d921aaa7d0cf7791eae",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"a23dbf6c6cc83e14cc3df4e56cc71845f611908084cfe620e83e40c06ccdd3d0"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2012-05-05\n📝 Original message:I recently was dabbling with AskFor() and changing the time waited from 2\nminutes to 10 seconds (I think perhaps this value may change in future\nversions when \"network tuning\" is implemented).\n\nI noticed that, when used with the -limitfreerelay option that is causes\nsignificant increase in traffic between peers. This is because the tx gets\nasked for (from all connected peers usually), but AlwaysHave never becomes\ntrue as it's never stored, always rejected, so it effectively getdatas the\ntransaction from every single connected peer.\n\nWould it perhaps be better to set up a memory pool for rejected txs and\nblocks (perhaps keeping only the hash) so that these rejected items can\ncontinue being ignored?\n\nI hope these observations are ok - I consider myself at the \"trying to\nunderstand the code/protocol/algorithm\" stage so might sometimes make false\nassumptions of what the code intends to do.\n\nEd\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20120505/e43e613f/attachment.html\u003e",
"sig": "74e5a86f89bdf429c2ea97cfbb266d3503e2d2c27caa9794f1aa5e22fccf1d14a4933ba7104253bda072d317c5cb7f393eef261cd2e83278933e15abfa9da159"
}