rich1.0npub1m6p5kgcd428x6pxyfege98zjmlwrdhp0gyz6pdnsvrvalscddnxqurdjn5https://nostr.ae/npub1m6p5kgcd428x6pxyfege98zjmlwrdhp0gyz6pdnsvrvalscddnxqurdjn5njumphttps://nostr.ae📅 Original date posted:2015-02-15 📝 Original message:On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 09:27:22AM +0100, Tamas Blummer wrote: > > > On Feb 12, 2015, at 9:16 AM, Alex Mizrahi <alex.mizrahi at 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 <pete at 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 . >