make cut_through more useful by returning both cut-through and non-cut-through elements#3410
Merged
Merged
Conversation
…ugh and non-cut-through elements split the slices internally rather than simply taking sub-slices
Member
Author
|
Merging this - tested on mainnet and we look good. |
Closed
This file contains hidden or 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
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
1 participant
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
Refactor
cut_through()to return both cut-through and non-cut-through elements.This makes
cut_through()significantly more flexible as we can use it to identify not just the inputs/outputs that remain after applying cut-through but also the inputs/outputs what are cut-through in the process.We currently use cut_through when aggregating a single transaction.
But - with this change we can now use cut_through to compare two separate transactions and identify the "overlap" between them. This effectively corresponds to 0-confirmation output spends.
By extension we can compare a transaction to the current txpool and identify the same "overlap" of outputs not yet in the utxo that would be spent (cut-through).
Simple example -
Inputs:
[A, B, C]Outputs:
[C, D, E]cut_through returns:
([A, B], [D, E], [C], [C])where inputCand outputCare cut-through.We would like to be able to lookup "to be spent" outputs based on a transaction entering the txpool.
This change gives us a nice convenient way of doing this.