mirror of
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin.git
synced 2026-03-02 09:46:14 +00:00
c134b1a4bc
6f113cb1847c6890f1fbd052ff7eb8ea41ccafc5 txgraph: use fallback order to sort chunks (feature) (Pieter Wuille) 0a3351947e736c646a6dfffef24b83d003c569e7 txgraph: use fallback order when linearizing (feature) (Pieter Wuille) fba004a3df02d8d5d47f1ad0bb1ccbfde01bb2af txgraph: pass fallback_order to TxGraph (preparation) (Pieter Wuille) 941c432a4637efd4e5040259f47f2bfed073af7c txgraph test: subclass TxGraph::Ref like mempool does (preparation) (Pieter Wuille) 39d0052cbf478a729ae0288262003bba9c12690b clusterlin: make optimal linearizations deterministic (feature) (Pieter Wuille) 8bfbba32077cb8682208ef31748a10562be027db txgraph: sort distinct-cluster chunks by equal-feerate-prefix size (feature) (Pieter Wuille) e0bc73ba9270b860d81e479a7bddcff8cfd8bfb6 clusterlin: sort tx in chunk by feerate and size (feature) (Pieter Wuille) 6c1bcb2c7c1a0017562e99195d74c3a05444633b txgraph: clear cluster's chunk index in ~Ref (preparation) (Pieter Wuille) 7427c7d0983050543f1fc7863121d8e2bf4b1511 txgraph: update chunk index on Compact (preparation) (Pieter Wuille) 3ddafceb9afd9d493b927bc91dae324225ed8e32 txgraph: initialize Ref in AddTransaction (preparation) (Pieter Wuille) Pull request description: Part of #30289. TxGraph's fundamental responsibility is deciding the order of transactions in the mempool. It relies on the `cluster_linearize.h` code to optimize it, but there can and often will be many different orderings that are essentially equivalent from a quality perspective, so we have to pick one. At a high level, the solution will involve one or more of: * Deciding based on **internal identifiers** (`Cluster::m_sequence`, `DepGraphIndex`). This is very simple, but risks leaking information about transaction receive order. * Deciding **randomly**, which is private, but may interfere with relay expectations, block propagation, and ability to monitor network behavior. * Deciding **based on txid**, which is private and deterministic, but risks incentivizing grinding to get an edge (though we haven't really seen such behavior). * Deciding **based on size** (e.g. prefer smaller transactions), which is somewhat related to quality, but not unconditionally (depending on mempool layout, the ideal ordering might call for smaller transactions first, last, or anywhere in between). It's also not a strong ordering as there can be many identically-sized transactions. However, if it were to encourage grinding behavior, incentivizing smaller transactions is probably not a bad thing. As of #32545, the current behavior is primarily picking randomly, though inconsistently, as some code paths also use internal identifiers and size. #33335 sought to change it to use random (preferring size in a few places), with the downsides listed above. This PR is an alternative to that, which changes the order to tie-break based on size everywhere possible, and use lowest-txid-first as final fallback. This is fully deterministic: for any given set of mempool transactions, if all linearized optimally, the transaction order exposed by TxGraph is deterministic. The transactions within a chunk are sorted according to: 1. `PostLinearize` (which improves sub-chunk order), using an initial linearization created using the rules 2-5 below. 2. Topology (parents before children). 3. Individual transaction feerate (high to low) 4. Individual transaction weight (small to large) 5. Txid (low to high txid) The chunks within a cluster are sorted according to: 1. Topology (chunks after their dependencies) 2. Chunk feerate (high to low) 3. Chunk weight (small to large) 4. Max-txid (chunk with lowest maximum-txid first) The chunks across clusters are sorted according to: 1. Feerate (high to low) 2. Equal-feerate-chunk-prefix weight (small to large) 3. Max-txid (chunk with lowest maximum-txid first) The equal-feerate-chunk-prefix weight of a chunk C is defined as the sum of the weights of all chunks in the same cluster as C, with the same feerate as C, up to and including C itself, in linearization order (but excluding such chunks that appear after C). This is a well-defined approximation of sorting chunks from small to large across clusters, while remaining consistent with intra-cluster linearization order. ACKs for top commit: ajtowns: reACK 6f113cb1847c6890f1fbd052ff7eb8ea41ccafc5 it was good before and now it's better instagibbs: ACK 6f113cb1847c6890f1fbd052ff7eb8ea41ccafc5 marcofleon: light crACK 6f113cb1847c6890f1fbd052ff7eb8ea41ccafc5 Tree-SHA512: 16dc43c62b7e83c81db1ee14c01e068ae2f06c1ffaa0898837d87271fa7179dd98baeb74abc9fe79220e01fdba6876defe60022c2b72badc21d770644a0fe0ac