Received: from sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.193] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-1.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1R8I53-0004IS-SX for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Mon, 26 Sep 2011 20:47:13 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com designates 209.85.161.47 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.161.47; envelope-from=gavinandresen@gmail.com; helo=mail-fx0-f47.google.com; Received: from mail-fx0-f47.google.com ([209.85.161.47]) by sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-MD5:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1R8I52-0002l8-Ti for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Mon, 26 Sep 2011 20:47:13 +0000 Received: by fxi1 with SMTP id 1so8958164fxi.34 for ; Mon, 26 Sep 2011 13:47:06 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.223.45.140 with SMTP id e12mr4208007faf.27.1317070026571; Mon, 26 Sep 2011 13:47:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.152.25.105 with HTTP; Mon, 26 Sep 2011 13:47:06 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <201109261517.11245.luke@dashjr.org> References: <201109261517.11245.luke@dashjr.org> Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2011 16:47:06 -0400 Message-ID: From: Gavin Andresen To: Luke-Jr Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Score: -1.6 (-) X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net. See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details. -1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for sender-domain 0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider (gavinandresen[at]gmail.com) -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record -0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from author's domain 0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not necessarily valid -0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature 0.0 AWL AWL: From: address is in the auto white-list X-Headers-End: 1R8I52-0002l8-Ti Cc: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Newly introduced DoS X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2011 20:47:14 -0000 On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 3:17 PM, Luke-Jr wrote: > + =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0return DoS(10, error("AcceptToMemoryPool() : transaction= with out-of- > bounds SigOpCount")); > + =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0return DoS(10, error("Co= nnectInputs() : tried to > spend coinbase at depth %d", pindexBlock->nHeight - pindex->nHeight)); > These shouldn't be "DoS"'d, or else you open a new DoS when nodes legitim= ately > relay such transactions/blocks. Huh? So in the future lets suppose we schedule a change to the acceptable block rules that allows more SigOps in a block, or allows generation transaction to be spent before 100 confirmations. At that same time, the DoS rules will be changed. You cannot "legitimately" relay those blocks without a scheduled block-chain-split. If a block-chain-split IS scheduled and the rules change, then denying service to nodes running old, obsolete versions of bitcoin is the right thing to do-- it is better to "fail hard" and find it difficult or impossible to connect to the network rather than continue with an obsolete client and a non-majority block chain. (and the third DoS in AcceptBlock(): prev block not found is a "should be impossible" case, because AcceptBlock is only called when extending the best-block chain). --=20 -- Gavin Andresen