Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
	designates 74.125.83.52 as permitted sender)
	client-ip=74.125.83.52; envelope-from=enmaku@gmail.com;
	helo=mail-gw0-f52.google.com; 
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Thu, 8 Sep 2011 07:42:17 -0700
Message-ID: <CAK5y1FhQLWXtqHfB3HymOkZ-5LdTqdEkX8bM=nOGhFeZrOPwgA@mail.gmail.com>
From: David Perry <enmaku@gmail.com>
To: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=00151773e3c040894b04ac6f1112
Subject: [Bitcoin-development] Alert System
Precedence: list

--00151773e3c040894b04ac6f1112
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

There has been some discussion on the new Bitcoin
StackExchange<http://bitcoin.stackexchange.com>site lately about the
alert protocol. A few have suggested that it might
carry the potential for abuse (spam/DoS) and others have argued that it's
merely deprecated. In any case, enough have voiced concerns that I've forked
bitcoin/bitcoin, removed the snippet of code from main.cpp that makes the
questionable call and submitted a pull
request<https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/506>.
On that pull request it was noted by Gavin Andresen that it merited
discussion here and some kind of consensus should be reached before acting
on that pull request. It was also mentioned that he thought the feature was
still more useful than dangerous and that he would argue against.

So I pose the question to you fine fellows: Is the alert system valuable, an
unnecessary risk or merely a snippet of deprecated code? Should it be
removed?

Sources:
http://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/583/what-is-the-alert-system-in-the-bitcoin-protocol-how-does-it-work/590
http://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/636/is-the-alert-system-still-in-the-main-clients-code-will-it-be-removed/711

--00151773e3c040894b04ac6f1112
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

There has been some discussion on the new <a href=3D"http://bitcoin.stackex=
change.com">Bitcoin StackExchange</a> site lately about the alert protocol.=
 A few have suggested that it might carry the potential for abuse (spam/DoS=
) and others have argued that it&#39;s merely deprecated. In any case, enou=
gh have voiced concerns that I&#39;ve forked bitcoin/bitcoin, removed the s=
nippet of code from main.cpp that makes the questionable call and submitted=
 a <a href=3D"https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/506">pull request</a>=
. On that pull request it was noted by Gavin Andresen that it merited discu=
ssion here and some kind of consensus should be reached before acting on th=
at pull request. It was also mentioned that he thought the feature was stil=
l more useful than dangerous and that he would argue against.<div>
<br></div><div>So I pose the question to you fine fellows: Is the alert sys=
tem valuable, an unnecessary risk or merely a snippet of deprecated code? S=
hould it be removed?<br><div><br></div><div>Sources:</div><div><a href=3D"h=
ttp://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/583/what-is-the-alert-system-in-t=
he-bitcoin-protocol-how-does-it-work/590">http://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/=
questions/583/what-is-the-alert-system-in-the-bitcoin-protocol-how-does-it-=
work/590</a></div>
<div><a href=3D"http://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/636/is-the-alert=
-system-still-in-the-main-clients-code-will-it-be-removed/711">http://bitco=
in.stackexchange.com/questions/636/is-the-alert-system-still-in-the-main-cl=
ients-code-will-it-be-removed/711</a></div>
</div>

--00151773e3c040894b04ac6f1112--