> "There's no technical reason for filters! Filters don't do anything!"
You were saying?
https://supertestnet.github.io/spam_tester/
Discussion
Have you considered adding CPU time?
I've not given it very much thought yet. I think it would be difficult to estimate how much a cpu was strained. Do you have any thoughts on it?
I am running Bitcoin Knots ❤
Bitcoin is Money.
The Right To Filter 👍
heard some feedback:
> This is great and could be improved if supertestnet uses this config for the node:
> feefilter=0
> blockreconstructionextratxnsize=300
I’m not sure how to read this. Is this total resource consumption of a transaction before or after it’s included in a block?
Before
So then it only makes a difference if the transaction is not included in a block?.. (Otherwise your node still has to perform ~these same calculations after all..)
I don't know what calculations you are referring to. The tool tracks usage of bandwidth. In the context of the mempool, standard transactions consume bandwidth when downloaded and when relayed. Filtered transactions only consume bandwidth when downloaded -- they are not relayed. Therefore, filtered transactions objectively consume less bandwidth. And, as some of the most common spam formats are among the transaction types filtered by Knots, a Knots mempool objectively uses less bandwidth on spam-relay than a Core mempool. That is what my tool highlights, and to do so, it uses specific examples from recent blocks.
Ah right, thanks.