1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
|
Return-Path: <luke@dashjr.org>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 77EA9114F
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Wed, 17 Feb 2016 00:46:38 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from zinan.dashjr.org (zinan.dashjr.org [192.3.11.21])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2BE87121
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Wed, 17 Feb 2016 00:46:38 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from ishibashi.localnet (unknown
[IPv6:2001:470:5:265:61b6:56a6:b03d:28d6])
(Authenticated sender: luke-jr)
by zinan.dashjr.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 075E838A2305;
Wed, 17 Feb 2016 00:46:26 +0000 (UTC)
X-Hashcash: 1:25:160217:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org::kEdnJsQfeH+DITip:ar375
X-Hashcash: 1:25:160217:morcos@gmail.com::OUAdxDH1WSsS40EH:CuJP
From: Luke Dashjr <luke@dashjr.org>
To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org,
Alex Morcos <morcos@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2016 00:46:16 +0000
User-Agent: KMail/1.13.7 (Linux/4.1.18-gentoo; KDE/4.14.8; x86_64; ; )
References: <CAPWm=eXi98cC0KP=5WayU05hezDFswrPe+vA58cTHvVLc80OzQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAPWm=eXi98cC0KP=5WayU05hezDFswrPe+vA58cTHvVLc80OzQ@mail.gmail.com>
X-PGP-Key-Fingerprint: E463 A93F 5F31 17EE DE6C 7316 BD02 9424 21F4 889F
X-PGP-Key-ID: BD02942421F4889F
X-PGP-Keyserver: hkp://pgp.mit.edu
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain;
charset="iso-8859-15"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <201602170046.17166.luke@dashjr.org>
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_SBL,
RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=no version=3.3.1
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
smtp1.linux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] [BIP Proposal] New "feefilter" p2p message
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Bitcoin Development Discussion <bitcoin-dev.lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/options/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2016 00:46:38 -0000
On Tuesday, February 16, 2016 8:20:26 PM Alex Morcos via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> # The feefilter message is defined as a message containing an int64_t where
> pchCommand == "feefilter"
What happened to extensibility? And why waste 64 bits for what is almost
certainly a small number?
> # The fee filter is additive with a bloom filter for transactions so if an
> SPV client were to load a bloom filter and send a feefilter message,
> transactions would only be relayed if they passed both filters.
This seems to make feefilter entirely useless for wallets?
Luke
|
