Make RelayWalletTransaction attempt to AcceptToMemoryPool. #9290

1. 
   gmaxwell commented at 6:49 am on December 6, 2016: contributor

   This resolves an issue where a wallet transaction which failed to relay previously because it couldn’t make it into the mempool will not try again until restart, even though mempool conditions may have changed. Rebroadcast of other transactions is unchanged and works as it always did.

   Abandoned and known-conflicted transactions are skipped.

   Some concern was expressed that there may be users with many unknown conflicts would waste a lot of CPU time trying to add them to their memory pools over and over again. But I am doubtful these users exist in any number, if they do exist they have worse problems, and they can mitigate any performance issue this might have by abandoning the transactions in question.

2. Make RelayWalletTransaction attempt to AcceptToMemoryPool.

   This resolves an issue where a wallet transaction which failed to
    relay previously because it couldn't make it into the mempool
    will not try again until restart, even though mempool conditions
    may have changed.
   
   Abandoned and known-conflicted transactions are skipped.
   
   Some concern was expressed that there may be users with many
    unknown conflicts would waste a lot of CPU time trying to
    add them to their memory pools over and over again.  But I am
    doubtful these users exist in any number, if they do exist
    they have worse problems, and they can mitigate any performance
    issue this might have by abandoning the transactions in question.

   f692fce8a4
3. in src/wallet/wallet.cpp: in e72d48558d outdated

   1547     {
   1548-        if (GetDepthInMainChain() == 0 && !isAbandoned() && InMempool()) {
   1549+        LOCK(mempool.cs);
   1550+        CValidationState state;
   1551+        /* GetDepthInMainChain already catches known conflicts. */
   1552+        if (mempool.exists(GetHash()) || AcceptToMemoryPool(maxTxFee, state)) {
   

   ---

   ---

   

   sipa commented at 7:13 am on December 6, 2016:

   If you use InMempool() here instead of mempool.exists(GetHash()), you can drop the LOCK(mempool.cs).
4. 
   MarcoFalke commented at 10:24 am on December 6, 2016: member

   utACK f692fce8a49e05e25f1c767aae1e50db419caebe
5. MarcoFalke added the label Wallet on Dec 6, 2016
6. 
   gmaxwell commented at 6:23 pm on December 8, 2016: contributor

   If we merge this, I’m also going to recommend we backport it.
7. 
   morcos commented at 6:48 pm on December 8, 2016: member

   Alex was here
8. 
   sdaftuar commented at 7:06 pm on December 8, 2016: member

   Concept and utACK, will test.
9. 
   jonasschnelli commented at 7:06 pm on December 8, 2016: contributor

   utACK f692fce8a49e05e25f1c767aae1e50db419caebe
10. 
    luke-jr commented at 2:38 am on December 9, 2016: member

    utACK, but I’m not clear on what “unknown conflicts” in OP refer to… shouldn’t all conflicts be known?
11. 
    gmaxwell commented at 3:13 pm on December 9, 2016: contributor

    @luke-jr If you take an old wallet– one from prior to the conflict tracking– with conflicts and load it, and do not rescan the whole blockchain, then there will be conflicts which are unknown to the wallet. ATMP will fail, but the wallet won’t know why.
12. 
    sdaftuar commented at 3:19 pm on December 9, 2016: member

    Tested this along with #9302, ACK.
13. 
    rebroad commented at 12:02 pm on December 10, 2016: contributor

    Is it worth notifiying the user when their tx is not being relayed? that way they might choose to bump the fee if it is desired.
14. 
    gmaxwell commented at 7:39 pm on December 10, 2016: contributor

    @rebroad It’s logged and the listtransaction information shows its not in the mempool. More will be done later, no doubt.
15. MarcoFalke added this to the milestone 0.13.2 on Dec 11, 2016
16. MarcoFalke added the label Needs backport on Dec 11, 2016
17. 
    MarcoFalke commented at 10:13 pm on December 11, 2016: member

    Tested this with #9302 on current master

    ACK

18. 
    instagibbs commented at 8:14 pm on December 12, 2016: member

    utACK f692fce8a49e05e25f1c767aae1e50db419caebe
19. MarcoFalke assigned laanwj on Dec 12, 2016
20. laanwj referenced this in commit 782328660e on Dec 14, 2016
21. sipa merged this on Dec 14, 2016
22. sipa closed this on Dec 14, 2016

    ---

23. sipa referenced this in commit 57e337d40e on Dec 14, 2016
24. MarcoFalke referenced this in commit f7b94f721c on Dec 14, 2016
25. MarcoFalke removed the label Needs backport on Dec 14, 2016
26. 
    MarcoFalke commented at 12:09 pm on December 14, 2016: member

    Backport in #9347 (release notes already merged)
27. MarcoFalke referenced this in commit c3eed6accc on Dec 14, 2016
28. MarcoFalke referenced this in commit f37e1f333f on Dec 14, 2016
29. MarcoFalke referenced this in commit 4291feccf5 on Dec 14, 2016
30. MarcoFalke referenced this in commit 35174a0280 on Dec 14, 2016
31. dexX7 referenced this in commit 2fdbc202ae on Jan 9, 2017
32. dexX7 referenced this in commit b1c266f414 on Jan 9, 2017
33. dexX7 referenced this in commit afb0c58e0b on Jan 23, 2017
34. dexX7 referenced this in commit a400d26561 on Jun 8, 2017
35. dexX7 referenced this in commit 2476c64723 on Jun 8, 2017
36. dexX7 referenced this in commit 3edbe7cc79 on Jun 8, 2017
37. codablock referenced this in commit e6d05d71dd on Jan 18, 2018
38. andvgal referenced this in commit 14de1354ab on Jan 6, 2019
39. CryptoCentric referenced this in commit c6ab8312b1 on Feb 26, 2019
40. MarcoFalke locked this on Sep 8, 2021

Contributors
gmaxwell sipa MarcoFalke morcos sdaftuar jonasschnelli luke-jr rebroad instagibbs

Labels
Wallet

Milestone
0.13.2