-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 359
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
docs: describe protocol version 2.0 #90
Open
SomberNight
wants to merge
9
commits into
spesmilo:master
Choose a base branch
from
SomberNight:202012_protocol_1_5
base: master
Could not load branches
Branch not found: {{ refName }}
Loading
Could not load tags
Nothing to show
Loading
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Some commits from the old base branch may be removed from the timeline,
and old review comments may become outdated.
Open
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
9 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
00ce0e1
docs: describe protocol version 1.5
SomberNight c2ce845
accommodate some review feedback
SomberNight 9363bb0
accommodate some feedback; and minor fix
SomberNight 116236e
Array headers: Document protocol method change
JeremyRand 1363789
as per review feedback
SomberNight 6297989
protocol docs: add jsonrpc example for blockchain.outpoint.subscribe
SomberNight 8d6f348
protocol docs: add more notes to blockchain.outpoint.subscribe
SomberNight 795c783
protocol docs: outpoint.subscribe: outpoint might not exist yet
SomberNight 7d0f207
rename protocol 1.5->2.0
SomberNight File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Oops, something went wrong.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
The script hash status is dependent on the transaction ordering.
If I order transactions incorrectly, I get the wrong script status hash and I'll do some extra requests which increase the server load.
This is more likely to happen if I have multiple transactions involving a script in the same block.
How the client should know the (relative) position of a transaction in the block?
Should the client infer it from the order in the returned list by previous calls to
get_history
?Does it make sense to use the same ordering that is used for mempool transactions for confirmed transactions too?
AFAICT it would be simpler for client libraries to implement correctly, and indirectly it should help the server too.