Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 85D50B13 for ; Thu, 9 Jul 2015 23:55:06 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from resqmta-ch2-10v.sys.comcast.net (resqmta-ch2-10v.sys.comcast.net [69.252.207.42]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 174FE9C for ; Thu, 9 Jul 2015 23:55:04 +0000 (UTC) Received: from resomta-ch2-19v.sys.comcast.net ([69.252.207.115]) by resqmta-ch2-10v.sys.comcast.net with comcast id qPul1q0062VvR6D01Pv3JS; Thu, 09 Jul 2015 23:55:03 +0000 Received: from crushinator.localnet ([IPv6:2601:186:c000:825e:e9f4:8901:87c7:24a0]) by resomta-ch2-19v.sys.comcast.net with comcast id qPv11q0064eLRLv01Pv295; Thu, 09 Jul 2015 23:55:03 +0000 From: Matt Whitlock To: Peter Todd , bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org Date: Thu, 09 Jul 2015 19:55 -0400 Message-ID: <1828256.77UID9hUjK@crushinator> User-Agent: KMail/4.14.10 (Linux/4.0.5-gentoo; KDE/4.14.10; x86_64; ; ) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=comcast.net; s=q20140121; t=1436486103; bh=7vUjQHISNlZjzA5EXANfG6U3LJpMn43IJ8gm0QSB8MM=; h=Received:Received:From:To:Subject:Date:Message-ID:MIME-Version: Content-Type; b=wPapgEXNfuKmZlSby9nE0z+lFKwCqhdeiEksPlyJuvHCjmcn4sCavmFQP3RR0+qPv rNJtylKKBNOYq6Gypk9R7UgKMvTVVWrKvBNi9A2DZLXpPeo1C8P5vlLzGe8luRVrDX TyElL13eXqy+ZeEk52uF6Y+qXRuMdHj1rKPxKhQWYkEiNDeCYVOMgMoIuLkURekJUF fm12QbMAlJV75Y8AMVWWf1nH++gZVUJMrXvSDvKhyb3ptxWDjSnNck7moo8Vu3CgQv 7alL+pr7+UEhkQroF8ink5Xj3TUp/UgCRalDA/Sbi1TQuAHie+rGK7botSuDfXHxwn 4XrKx6iM6TeWA== X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE, T_FROM_12LTRDOM autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org Subject: [bitcoin-dev] Can we penalize peers who relay rejected replacement txs? X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Development Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 09 Jul 2015 23:55:06 -0000 I'm presently running my full node with Peter Todd's full replace-by-fee patch set [1]. I am seeing a LOT of messages in the log about replacement transactions being rejected due to their paying less in fees than the transactions they would replace. I understand that this could happen legitimately from time to time, due to my node's receiving a replacing transaction prior to receiving the replaced transaction; however, due to the ongoing spam attack, I am seeing a steady stream of these rejection messages, dozens per second at times. I am wondering if each replacement rejection ought to penalize the peer who relayed the offending transaction, and if the penalty builds up enough, then the peer could be temporarily banned, similar to how other "misbehaving" peers are treated. [1] https://github.com/petertodd/bitcoin/commits/replace-by-fee-v0.10.2