Wasn't this already not a problem because you can check if it was confirmed? The transaction is not finalised in the mempool it is just speculation of a transaction, so it makes sense to emit when the transaction is confirmed. Just already check..
> It appears that the ZeroMQ topic I'm listening to, "rawtx", not only > emits a raw transaction when it appears on the mempool, but once it's > already confirmed too. KING JAMES HRMH Great British Empire Regards, The Australian LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH (& HMRH) of Hougun Manor & Glencoe & British Empire MR. Damian A. James Williamson Wills et al. Willtech www.willtech.com.au www.go-overt.com duigco.org DUIGCO API and other projects m. 0487135719 f. +61261470192 This email does not constitute a general advice. Please disregard this email if misdelivered. ________________________________ From: bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev-boun...@lists.linuxfoundation.org> on behalf of 0xB10C via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> Sent: Monday, 29 November 2021 8:32 PM To: Ali Sherief <a...@notatether.com>; Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Trying to patch Core ZMQ "rawtx" topic to only publish unconfirmed transactions: How? Hi Ali, I've run into this multiple times myself. I've opened a draft PR [0] adding a rawmempooltx publisher. You're right. In zmq/zmqnotificationinterface.cpp the CZMQNotificationInterface is notified about TransactionAddedToMempool. Currently, this calls NotifyTransaction() (the publisher with the rawtx topic) and NotifyTransactionAcceptance() (the publisher with the sequence topic)[1]. I've added a call to a new NotifyMempoolTransaction() function (the publisher with the rawmempooltx topic). I'd find a mempool transaction publisher with both the raw transaction and transaction fee useful too. However, this requires changes to the chain notifications in interfaces/chain.h. [0]: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/23624 [1]: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/23624/files#diff-ac4b2d3a8de2c4dd41ad9d75505ea6ce4dc87a476710a9ebee8acf9bebf5cca2L146-L148 Best, 0xB10C On 11/26/21 5:56 PM, Ali Sherief via bitcoin-dev wrote: > > This has also been posted on Bitcointalk > forum: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5373341.msg58539261#msg58539261 > <https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5373341.msg58539261#msg58539261> I > have republished it here hoping someone more knowledgeable can post > some insight about this. > ---- > It appears that the ZeroMQ topic I'm listening to, "rawtx", not only > emits a raw transaction when it appears on the mempool, but once it's > already confirmed too. > > This messes with my software, causing it to add txids, addresses, etc. > a second time inside arrays (this means that the same transaction is > received twice in total). > > Array de-duping is not a viable solution long-term (because the array > will quickly grow to be big eventually and then this has to happen > every time a new element is added), so I'm trying to nip the problem > from the source by instructing Core to only publish unconfirmed > bitcoin transactions. > > According to > https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/52848/is-it-possible-to-configure-the-bitcoin-daemon-to-only-broadcast-unconfirmed-tra > <https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/52848/is-it-possible-to-configure-the-bitcoin-daemon-to-only-broadcast-unconfirmed-tra> > , it is not possible to configure this from a configuration or > command-line option. The source code must directly be edited. But > since the codebase has changed greatly, the proposed solution no > longer works. > > ---- > > So basically, I know that something inside > src/zmq/zmqnotificationinterface.cpp needs to be patched, but I'm not > sure which function, or how to do it. Because I only need unconfirmed > transactions to be published on ZeroMQ rawtx and not confirmed ones, > it's one of the following functions that I need to patch for my own build: > > CZMQNotificationInterface::TransactionRemovedFromMempool > void CZMQNotificationInterface::BlockDisconnected > > Both of these call NotifyTransaction() method which I assume fires a > message on "rawtx" channel. > > In the Stack Exchange question I linked above, Jonas Schnelli > suggested adding an `if (!pblock)` check, but that was several years > ago and the function he was referencing no longer exists. > > But I still wonder if the pblock check is still applicable in the > present day (i.e. if it's indicating a block the transaction is inside). > > - Ali Sherief > > _______________________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev _______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
_______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
