Always clean up manual transaction prioritization #6464

1. 
   casey commented at 4:08 pm on July 22, 2015: contributor

   This fixes #4818

   An alternative fix is to add the transaction prioritization information to CTxMemPoolEntry itself, instead of storing it separately. This would add 128 bits to every transaction in the mempool, which seems undesirable, given that the majority of transactions won’t have a manual transaction prioritization delta. @morcos

2. 
   jgarzik commented at 7:02 pm on July 23, 2015: contributor

   concept ACK - will review & test in depth
3. 
   luke-jr commented at 8:06 pm on July 23, 2015: member

   Prioritisations should never be removed until a transaction is mined. It’s intentionally not on CTxMemPoolEntry because we may not have (or be willing to accept) the transaction until after prioritising it. Although it does make sense to remove the entry if a conflicting transaction is confirmed.
4. laanwj added the label Mining on Jul 24, 2015
5. 
   sipa commented at 5:58 pm on July 24, 2015: member

   Agree with @luke-jr. @casey can you move the remove call to CTxMemPool::removeForBlock ?
6. 
   casey commented at 6:03 pm on July 24, 2015: contributor

   @luke-jr @sipa In that case, shouldn’t the existing call to ClearPrioritisation in CTxMemPool::removeForBlock be left where it is, and an additional one be added to CTxMemPool::removeConflicts, to clear the priority of conflicting transactions?
7. Clean up tx prioritization when conflict mined 2d8c49d126
8. 
   casey commented at 7:50 pm on August 3, 2015: contributor

   So I think in that case it’s just a simple one line change to clear prioritizations when a conflicting transaction is mined.
9. 
   sipa commented at 5:34 pm on August 4, 2015: member

   Seems reasonable to me.
10. 
    casey commented at 7:49 pm on September 3, 2015: contributor

    @luke-jr, could you take a look and make sure that it’s now doing the right thing?
11. 
    gavinandresen commented at 8:01 pm on September 3, 2015: contributor

    Untested ACK.
12. 
    luke-jr commented at 2:51 am on October 23, 2015: member

    Looks reasonable, utACK
13. laanwj merged this on Oct 27, 2015
14. laanwj closed this on Oct 27, 2015

    ---

15. laanwj referenced this in commit 8f3b3cdee4 on Oct 27, 2015
16. luke-jr referenced this in commit f5cc9b1bc6 on Nov 18, 2015
17. luke-jr referenced this in commit 910bb77910 on Dec 8, 2015
18. furszy referenced this in commit 6143f803b2 on Jan 30, 2021
19. MarcoFalke locked this on Sep 8, 2021

Contributors
casey jgarzik luke-jr sipa gavinandresen

Labels
Mining