Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

RPC: sendrawtransaction: Allow the user to ignore/override specific rejections #7533

Closed
wants to merge 6 commits into from

Conversation

@luke-jr
Copy link
Member

luke-jr commented Feb 14, 2016

Replace boolean allowhighfees with an Array of rejections to ignore (in a backward compatible manner)

This is useful for node operators who wish to manually accept transactions that don't meet their typical policies, yet don't necessarily want to override all the policies.

It's a bit ugly internally - suggestions on improving that are welcome.

@luke-jr luke-jr force-pushed the luke-jr:sendraw_force branch to 1cc1ce4 Feb 14, 2016
luke-jr added a commit to luke-jr/bitcoin that referenced this pull request Feb 14, 2016
luke-jr added a commit to luke-jr/bitcoin that referenced this pull request Feb 14, 2016
…rrideMempoolLimit and fRejectAbsurdFee) with flexible std::set of rejections to ignore

Github-Pull: bitcoin#7533
Rebased-From: 9f03c06
luke-jr added a commit to luke-jr/bitcoin that referenced this pull request Feb 14, 2016
…of rejections to ignore (in a backward compatible manner)

Github-Pull: bitcoin#7533
Rebased-From: 1cc1ce4
@laanwj laanwj added the RPC/REST/ZMQ label Feb 15, 2016
luke-jr added a commit to bitcoinknots/bitcoin that referenced this pull request Feb 25, 2016
Implements bitcoin#7442 by adding an option `-stdin` which reads
additional arguments from stdin, one per line.

For example

```bash
echo -e "mysecretcode\n120" | src/bitcoin-cli -stdin walletpassphrase
echo -e "walletpassphrase\nmysecretcode\n120" | src/bitcoin-cli -stdin
```

Github-Pull: bitcoin#7533
Rebased-From: 92bcca3
@jameshilliard
Copy link
Contributor

jameshilliard commented Mar 9, 2016

concept ACK

@promag
Copy link
Member

promag commented Mar 9, 2016

@luke-jr why not turn the second argument an JSON object to be more scalable. For instance, I was planning to add option unlockUnspents.

src/main.h Outdated
@@ -281,7 +281,22 @@ void PruneAndFlush();

/** (try to) add transaction to memory pool **/
bool AcceptToMemoryPool(CTxMemPool& pool, CValidationState &state, const CTransaction &tx, bool fLimitFree,

This comment has been minimized.

@MarcoFalke

MarcoFalke Mar 30, 2016 Member

Wouldn't it make sense to finally get rid of fLimitFree, which is only hardcoded to false for the wallet and sendrawtransaction?

This comment has been minimized.

@luke-jr

luke-jr Nov 12, 2016 Author Member

It does already support ignoring "rate limited free transaction" failures, but fLimitFree not only bypasses such failures, it also exempts the transaction from the rate limiting count entirely.

luke-jr added a commit to bitcoinknots/bitcoin that referenced this pull request Jun 28, 2016
@jameshilliard
Copy link
Contributor

jameshilliard commented Jul 5, 2016

Is this something that we might be able to get in 0.13? Without something like this the alternative for pool operators is usually to patch out the problematic is-standard check blocking the send which is usually not desired.

@laanwj
Copy link
Member

laanwj commented Jul 11, 2016

Sorry, no, this missed the feature freeze for 0.13 by a long haul.

@luke-jr luke-jr force-pushed the luke-jr:sendraw_force branch from 1cc1ce4 Aug 6, 2016
@luke-jr luke-jr force-pushed the luke-jr:sendraw_force branch to 83b1290 Aug 24, 2016
@MarcoFalke
Copy link
Member

MarcoFalke commented Oct 22, 2016

Needs rebase on top of master instead of 0.13

@luke-jr luke-jr force-pushed the luke-jr:sendraw_force branch from 83b1290 Nov 12, 2016
@luke-jr
Copy link
Member Author

luke-jr commented Nov 12, 2016

@jameshilliard Knots has had this for a while. Miners should probably be using it anyway.

@MarcoFalke Rebased.

@luke-jr luke-jr force-pushed the luke-jr:sendraw_force branch Nov 16, 2016
@paveljanik
Copy link
Contributor

paveljanik commented Dec 10, 2016

Concept ACK
Needs rebase.

@luke-jr luke-jr force-pushed the luke-jr:sendraw_force branch Dec 26, 2016
@luke-jr
Copy link
Member Author

luke-jr commented Dec 26, 2016

Rebased.

Could be combined with #9422 to restore policy-bypassing transactions after a restart, but I consider that beyond the scope of this PR, and something to address after both get merged.

@luke-jr luke-jr force-pushed the luke-jr:sendraw_force branch 2 times, most recently to 99d66e2 Feb 2, 2017
@sipa
Copy link
Member

sipa commented Apr 9, 2017

I'm not convinced about the need to ignore based on the exact reason (as that is likely something that's hard to maintain, as reasons change over time). How about just a boolean to bypass standardness/fee/mempool policy rules (but keep consensus and script execution flags for upgradability)?

@TheBlueMatt
Copy link
Contributor

TheBlueMatt commented Jul 11, 2017

Agree with @sipa. This is not going to be maintainable for API clients. Are you planning on rebasing this luke?

@luke-jr
Copy link
Member Author

luke-jr commented Aug 14, 2017

Typically people only want to bypass a specific policy, and not others. For example, a miner might want to bypass the fee checks or bypass the ancestor limit on replacements, but not other policies.

Will have a rebase done soon.

@jameshilliard
Copy link
Contributor

jameshilliard commented Aug 14, 2017

I don't think it's all that important to have the ability to have granular overrides, if that's important to some miners it can be implemented externally, most of the time a miner will just want to force add the transaction and will have already checked that it violates policy rules(often by looking at the failure reason when they try and send it normally).

@luke-jr luke-jr force-pushed the luke-jr:sendraw_force branch from 99d66e2 Aug 16, 2017
@luke-jr luke-jr force-pushed the luke-jr:sendraw_force branch Aug 16, 2017
@luke-jr
Copy link
Member Author

luke-jr commented Aug 16, 2017

@jameshilliard It can't be added externally... Looking at the first failure reason won't tell you if it violates other policies as well.

Anyhow, rebase is ready for review, and refactored somewhat so hopefully it's also easier to review.

@luke-jr luke-jr force-pushed the luke-jr:sendraw_force branch to 89e516f Aug 21, 2017
@sipa
Copy link
Member

sipa commented Sep 21, 2017

I think the ability to override specific rejection reasons is overkill, and risks creating an interface that is unmaintainable.

A boolean to say "ignore all policy, accept if consensus-valid" would be fine, though.

@laanwj
Copy link
Member

laanwj commented Sep 21, 2017

Agree with @sipa, making this too granular makes this unmaintainable as rejection reasons might come and go, or implemented differently, as policy changes. After all, policy is not standardized.
(on the other hand ,the interface would be expected to change based on policy changes...)

@DuncanBetts
Copy link

DuncanBetts commented Jan 8, 2018

I've just been mulling over this. How about giving node operators a hook, and allowing them to implement this sort of functionality themselves if they need it. I note that no node operators aside luke have requested this functionality here. I don't know how practical my suggestion is.

@ghost
Copy link

ghost commented Jan 25, 2018

this seems kool lets merge it

@Sjors
Copy link
Member

Sjors commented Mar 8, 2018

Needs love (as in, needs rebase and addressing concerns). A simpler alternative is probably the best way to move this forward. Some examples of use cases would be nice too; "node operators who wish to manually accept transactions that don't meet their typical policies" is a bit vague.

@laanwj
Copy link
Member

laanwj commented Aug 31, 2018

Closing and adding "up for grabs", this is the oldest PR and has been inactive for quite long, too

@laanwj laanwj closed this Aug 31, 2018
@luke-jr luke-jr mentioned this pull request May 1, 2019
@laanwj laanwj removed the Needs rebase label Oct 24, 2019
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Linked issues

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

10 participants
You can’t perform that action at this time.