listsinceblock and listtransactions don't show incoming unconfirmed transactions

[santins77]

The list of transactions returned by listsinceblock and listtransactions don't show the incoming transactions with 0 confirmations. They are only shown when they reach one confirmation. This rpc api behavior is different comparing to bitcoin and some other bitcoin family coins

[iFoggz]

the listtransactions functionality is not much different then bitcoins actually . if the transaction has 0 confirms it does show for me in listtransactions with 0 confirms (sent to myself). default it shows only 10 transactions. there are some issues regarding listsinceblock in the main release that is addressed in development slated for release in near future.i'll verify there were no changes to listtransactions since release

only time no tx would be shown is if it conflicted -1

also note that if someone sends u a tx u wont see it till 1 confirm anyway as the block u receive that has the tx is considered first confirm

[santins77]

I'm having the issue when the transaction is sent from some external address to my wallet. When I sent money from my wallet to another address the commands seem to work OK. That is why I mention in incoming transactions.

[iFoggz]

so your sending from a wallet to another wallet then? or are you sending between two addresses within same wallet?

[iFoggz]

any txs received from the network from two different wallets wont show till 1 confirm as it sits in the memory pool until a staked block carries the transaction

[santins77]

Do you have in mind to change that behavior? In bitcoin, lite, and others the show this transactions in those cases

[iFoggz]

that would likely occur when we do a rebase to add the functionality of showing transactions sitting in the memory pool.

[iFoggz]

we will be re-basing to update the long overdue code in the files

[santins77]

OK. Nice! Thanks for the info

[iFoggz]

getrawmempool rpc command will display all txs in the memory pool waiting to be staked in a block. you can still gettransaction a tx if it is in the memorypool

[iFoggz]

this behavior still present?

[iFoggz]

So I don't know if I consider this an overall problem still:

listtransactions:
If sent to myself: will show with 0 confirmations
if received from someone else: will show after 1 confirmation
immature stakes will show immediately as its technically confirmed 1 time unless the network disagrees and a reorg occurs at a later time in which they shouldn't be showing anymore as they are -1 conflicted and they are ignored.

I don't agree with a unconfirmed transaction showing up unless at least 1 confirm but that my opinion. It is in the memory pool awaiting to be accepted into the network.

listsinceblock:
this is block based so if a transaction is not in a block then I see no reason for the wallet to show it.

It is just my opinion that a transaction with 0 confirms should not show in listtransaction nor GUI as well. I make no plan(s) to touch this issue myself. I think it would be more confusing for the non technical user to see a transaction appear and only to disappear after the next block because it was rejected by the network for any number of reasons.

If no one else agrees they could take this one on.

[joewinkler]

I think it is more confusing, a transaction you've sent by yourself not being in the transaction list. You may be confused, whether you really did this transaction. If it is clearly visible there are no confirmations yet, I cannot see any problem in showing transactions without confirmation.

[iFoggz]

a transaction being sent by yourself to yourself will show as well as a transaction you sent will show as well.

What i was saying is I don't think it should show a incoming transaction to you from someone else that hasnt had atleast 1 confirm.

The original poster wanted to see 0 confirm incoming transactions from other people to him.

[jamescowens]

I agree Paul. We should close this issue.

…

Sent from my iPhone

On Jun 1, 2022, at 8:07 PM, Paul Jensen ***@***.***> wrote:  a transaction being sent by yourself to yourself will show as well as a transaction you sent will show as well. What i was saying is I don't think it should show a incoming transaction to you from someone else that hasnt had atleast 1 confirm. The original poster wanted to see 0 confirm incoming transactions from other people to him. — Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or unsubscribe. You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.

[iFoggz]

I agree, any input from @cyrossignol and @div72 on this?

[div72]

I disagree.

Imagine a situation where I am a vendor and you are a long time customer buying a low value item at a market. I would rather not wait ~96 seconds before the tx gets in to a block and just accept the payment when it hits my mempool since I trust you and there is low risk and low loss.

Irregardless of what I think though, we should follow upstream in order to maintain compatibility with scripts designed for it.

[jamescowens]

@div72 has a good point.

[iFoggz]

@div72 I do agree to that point however we still not there so this will likely be pushed off repeatedly since all the files are changed as well as locations of things upstream.

[div72]

@iFoggz Alright, let's do the RPC port then. I'll start that tomorrow.

[jamescowens]

We need to be super careful during the port that we do not unwittingly break Gridcoin specific stuff. The port is going to be irritating I think... :)

[iFoggz]

it wouldnt just be rpc part to be ported but all the src/wallet/rpc src/wallet parts. they broke stuff up and moved alot around

to me this isnt an issue but rather a goal apart of the portign of all the bitcoin code is more what i was getting at.