Received: from sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.194] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-1.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1R4Dzo-0006dN-FP for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Thu, 15 Sep 2011 15:37:00 +0000 X-ACL-Warn: Received: from zinan.dashjr.org ([173.242.112.54]) by sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) id 1R4Dzn-0000kY-EK for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Thu, 15 Sep 2011 15:37:00 +0000 Received: from ishibashi.localnet (fl-184-4-160-40.dhcp.embarqhsd.net [184.4.160.40]) (Authenticated sender: luke-jr) by zinan.dashjr.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 9E4CE20403A; Thu, 15 Sep 2011 15:36:53 +0000 (UTC) From: "Luke-Jr" To: kjj Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2011 11:36:44 -0400 User-Agent: KMail/1.13.7 (Linux/2.6.39-gentoo; KDE/4.6.5; x86_64; ; ) References: <201109142206.40455.luke@dashjr.org> <4E71F5F8.2020807@jerviss.org> In-Reply-To: <4E71F5F8.2020807@jerviss.org> X-PGP-Key-Fingerprint: CE5A D56A 36CC 69FA E7D2 3558 665F C11D D53E 9583 X-PGP-Key-ID: 665FC11DD53E9583 X-PGP-Keyserver: x-hkp://subkeys.pgp.net MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <201109151136.47485.luke@dashjr.org> X-Spam-Score: -0.5 (/) X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net. See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details. -0.5 RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay domain X-Headers-End: 1R4Dzn-0000kY-EK Cc: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Request review: drop misbehaving peers 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: Thu, 15 Sep 2011 15:37:00 -0000 On Thursday, September 15, 2011 8:56:24 AM kjj wrote: > 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. No. There is no such thing as "non-standard transactions" really; it is simply "transactions outside of the bounds that I as a user/miner will relay/accept". It is perfectly legitimate for other users/miners to relay/accept transactions more liberally. By penalising for transactions falling outside of your *personal policies*, you would end up banning many legitimate nodes.