Overwriting equivalent mempool transaction #4517

issue sipa opened this issue on July 12, 2014
  1. sipa commented at 8:28 PM on July 12, 2014: member

    #4450 introduced a check for non-equivalent double spends and relaying, but for equivalent double spends it changed existing behaviour by still calling mempool.addUnchecked() on them. This breaks mempool consistency (detected using -checkmempool after a few days of running), which could be exploited to crash miner's nodes. #4484 seems to fix this.

  2. dgenr8 commented at 9:30 PM on July 12, 2014: contributor

    With #4484, the IsEquivalent check occurs after boolean "respend" is set true. By that point, there is no way that tx can get added to the mempool.

  3. sipa cross-referenced this on Jul 18, 2014 from issue Reverted double spend relaying (for now) by jgarzik
  4. laanwj commented at 10:49 AM on September 25, 2014: member

    This problem no longer exists as the change has been reverted.

  5. laanwj closed this on Sep 25, 2014
  6. bitcoin locked this on Sep 8, 2021
Contributors
sipadgenr8laanwj
Linked (view graph)
#4450 Check signatures before double-spend relay#4484 Fix: respend relay must examine more inputs#4550 Reverted double spend relaying (for now)
github-metadata-mirror

This is a metadata mirror of the GitHub repository bitcoin/bitcoin. This site is not affiliated with GitHub. Content is generated from a GitHub metadata backup.
generated: 2026-05-20 06:55 UTC