Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
	designates 209.85.212.53 as permitted sender)
	client-ip=209.85.212.53; envelope-from=shadders.del@gmail.com;
	helo=mail-vw0-f53.google.com; 
Message-ID: <4E68D968.1080604@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 09 Sep 2011 01:04:08 +1000
From: Steve <shadders.del@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US;
	rv:1.9.2.21) Gecko/20110831 Thunderbird/3.1.13
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: David Perry <enmaku@gmail.com>
References: <CAK5y1FhQLWXtqHfB3HymOkZ-5LdTqdEkX8bM=nOGhFeZrOPwgA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAK5y1FhQLWXtqHfB3HymOkZ-5LdTqdEkX8bM=nOGhFeZrOPwgA@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
	boundary="------------010805000404030409010000"
Cc: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Alert System
Precedence: list
Reply-To: shadders.del@gmail.com

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------010805000404030409010000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

I think there's a significant risk to not having it at this stage.  
There's many reasons why an urgent update may been to rapidly propagated 
in this stage of the network's lifecycle.  Perhaps if there's a 
perceived threat of abuse the protocol could be altered slightly so it 
can't carry content.  Only a notification of the fact that there is an 
alert.  Then it would be up to individual clients whether they react to 
it or not.  The main clients would probably check a central trusted 
server for actual alert content.  This would give a lot more flexibility 
in how to deal with the alert.  Alert content servers could for example 
implement a json api to provide alert content with meta data like target 
client version, priority etc.

I think it should be removed in the future but not for a good while yet.

On 09/09/11 00:42, David Perry wrote:
> 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
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Doing More with Less: The Next Generation Virtual Desktop
> What are the key obstacles that have prevented many mid-market businesses
> from deploying virtual desktops?   How do next-generation virtual desktops
> provide companies an easier-to-deploy, easier-to-manage and more affordable
> virtual desktop model.http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfnl/114/51426474/
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Bitcoin-development mailing list
> Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development

--------------010805000404030409010000
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
  <head>
    <meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
      http-equiv="Content-Type">
  </head>
  <body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
    I think there's a significant risk to not having it at this stage.&nbsp;
    There's many reasons why an urgent update may been to rapidly
    propagated in this stage of the network's lifecycle.&nbsp; Perhaps if
    there's a perceived threat of abuse the protocol could be altered
    slightly so it can't carry content.&nbsp; Only a notification of the fact
    that there is an alert.&nbsp; Then it would be up to individual clients
    whether they react to it or not.&nbsp; The main clients would probably
    check a central trusted server for actual alert content.&nbsp; This would
    give a lot more flexibility in how to deal with the alert.&nbsp; Alert
    content servers could for example implement a json api to provide
    alert content with meta data like target client version, priority
    etc.&nbsp; <br>
    <br>
    I think it should be removed in the future but not for a good while
    yet.<br>
    <br>
    On 09/09/11 00:42, David Perry wrote:
    <blockquote
cite="mid:CAK5y1FhQLWXtqHfB3HymOkZ-5LdTqdEkX8bM=nOGhFeZrOPwgA@mail.gmail.com"
      type="cite">There has been some discussion on the new <a
        moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://bitcoin.stackexchange.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'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 <a
        moz-do-not-send="true"
        href="https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/506">pull request</a>.
      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.
      <div>
        <br>
      </div>
      <div>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?<br>
        <div><br>
        </div>
        <div>Sources:</div>
        <div><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="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/583/what-is-the-alert-system-in-the-bitcoin-protocol-how-does-it-work/590</a></div>
        <div><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/636/is-the-alert-system-still-in-the-main-clients-code-will-it-be-removed/711">http://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/636/is-the-alert-system-still-in-the-main-clients-code-will-it-be-removed/711</a></div>
      </div>
      <pre wrap="">
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Doing More with Less: The Next Generation Virtual Desktop 
What are the key obstacles that have prevented many mid-market businesses
from deploying virtual desktops?   How do next-generation virtual desktops
provide companies an easier-to-deploy, easier-to-manage and more affordable
virtual desktop model.http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfnl/114/51426474/</pre>
      <pre wrap="">
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
_______________________________________________
Bitcoin-development mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net">Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development">https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development</a>
</pre>
    </blockquote>
  </body>
</html>

--------------010805000404030409010000--