{"type":"rich","version":"1.0","author_name":"npub1m6p5kgcd428x6pxyfege98zjmlwrdhp0gyz6pdnsvrvalscddnxqurdjn5","author_url":"https://nostr.ae/npub1m6p5kgcd428x6pxyfege98zjmlwrdhp0gyz6pdnsvrvalscddnxqurdjn5","provider_name":"njump","provider_url":"https://nostr.ae","html":"📅 Original date posted:2015-02-15\n📝 Original message:On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 09:27:22AM +0100, Tamas Blummer wrote:\n\u003e \n\u003e \n\u003e On Feb 12, 2015, at 9:16 AM, Alex Mizrahi \u003calex.mizrahi at gmail.com\u003e wrote:\n\u003e \u003e Why don't you use getrawmempool RPC call to synchronize mempool contents?\n\u003e \n\u003e \n\u003e \n\u003e Since RPC interface does not scale to serve a multi user service.\n\u003e In absence of better alternative, the interfaces used by a proprietary extension are usually the same as in P2P consensus.\n\u003e \n\u003e POW is used to figure the longest chain and until now broadcasted transactions were assumed the one and only. \n\u003e These simple rules ensure a consensus between the proprietary stack and the border router, and that is the consensus I referred to.\n\u003e \n\nIf a proprietary stack has problems with replace-by-fee then it's probably \nsucceptible to malicious attack because an attacker could just broadcast\none transaction to the network and then replace it when they are able to\nmine a block themselves.\n\n\u003e \n\u003e On Feb 12, 2015, at 8:45 AM, Peter Todd \u003cpete at petertodd.org\u003e wrote:\n\u003e \u003e IOW, assume every transaction your \"border router\" gives you is now the\n\u003e \u003e one and only true transaction, and everything conflicting with it must\n\u003e \u003e go.\n\u003e \n\u003e \n\u003e You are right that the assumption about the one and only transaction have to be relaxed. Broadcasting \n\u003e double spend only if it is actually replacing an earlier - for whatever reason, would simplify internal consensus logic .\n\u003e"}