Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
	designates 74.125.82.175 as permitted sender)
	client-ip=74.125.82.175; envelope-from=gavinandresen@gmail.com;
	helo=mail-we0-f175.google.com; 
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Sat, 26 Oct 2013 10:34:51 +1000
Message-ID: <CABsx9T2UfGNiCuCzw00Tgk8aZQ=ZcnT=bDFqrsrYC7r355QRmw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Gavin Andresen <gavinandresen@gmail.com>
To: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c25f42f6573804e99a08b3
Subject: [Bitcoin-development] Feedback requested: "reject" p2p message
Precedence: list

--001a11c25f42f6573804e99a08b3
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

Mike Hearn has been lobbying for an "error" message in the Bitcoin p2p
protocol for years (at least since the "ban peers if they send us garbage"
denial-of-service mitigation code was pull-requested). This came up again
with my proposed "smartfee" changes, which would drop low-priority or
low-fee transactions.

In short, giving peers feedback about why their blocks or transactions are
dropped or why they are being banned should help interoperability between
different implementations, and will give SPV (simplified payment
verification) clients feedback when their transactions are rejected due to
insufficient priority or fees.

See the gist for details, I'm looking for feedback and planning on
implementing this before circling back to finish the 'smart fee' work:

   https://gist.github.com/gavinandresen/7079034

-- 
--
Gavin Andresen

--001a11c25f42f6573804e99a08b3
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr">Mike Hearn has been lobbying for an &quot;error&quot; mess=
age in the Bitcoin p2p protocol for years (at least since the &quot;ban pee=
rs if they send us garbage&quot; denial-of-service mitigation code was pull=
-requested). This came up again with my proposed &quot;smartfee&quot; chang=
es, which would drop low-priority or low-fee transactions.<br>
<br>In short, giving peers feedback about why their blocks or transactions =
are dropped or why they are being banned should help interoperability betwe=
en different implementations, and will give SPV (simplified payment verific=
ation) clients feedback when their transactions are rejected due to insuffi=
cient priority or fees.<div>
<br></div><div>See the gist for details, I&#39;m looking for feedback and p=
lanning on implementing this before circling back to finish the &#39;smart =
fee&#39; work:</div><div><br></div><div>=A0 =A0<a href=3D"https://gist.gith=
ub.com/gavinandresen/7079034">https://gist.github.com/gavinandresen/7079034=
</a><br>
</div><div><br></div><div>-- <br>--<br>Gavin Andresen<br>
</div><div><br></div></div>

--001a11c25f42f6573804e99a08b3--