Message-ID: <4E71F5F8.2020807@jerviss.org>
Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2011 07:56:24 -0500
From: kjj <kjj@jerviss.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1;
	rv:6.0.2) Gecko/20110902 SeaMonkey/2.3.3
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Luke-Jr <luke@dashjr.org>
References: <CABsx9T2MKTYCeOqERXKBMYEqNEK4eo9jGt81gZE1=Fv=s3wEqA@mail.gmail.com>
	<201109142206.40455.luke@dashjr.org>
In-Reply-To: <201109142206.40455.luke@dashjr.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Received-SPF: pass (inana.jerviss.org: 156.99.25.142 is authenticated by a
	trusted mechanism)
Cc: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Request review: drop misbehaving peers
Precedence: list

Luke-Jr wrote:
> On Wednesday, September 14, 2011 9:57:00 PM Gavin Andresen wrote:
>> I'm looking for review of this pull request:
>>    https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/517
> "Non-standard" transactions, or those with "insufficient" fees should not be
> penalised. These are properly relay/miner policy decisions, not protocol
> violations, and should be made more easily configurable, not punished for
> configuration.
>
>
A few non-standard transactions are probably legitimate.  A whole bunch 
of them are probably not.  I would think that assigning a point or two 
of badness to a peer sending one is pretty reasonable, with the 
understanding that we would need to adjust that as the network evolves.