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
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
|
Received: from sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.193]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-4.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <enmaku@gmail.com>) id 1R1foC-0005CJ-OR
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Thu, 08 Sep 2011 14:42:28 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
designates 74.125.83.52 as permitted sender)
client-ip=74.125.83.52; envelope-from=enmaku@gmail.com;
helo=mail-gw0-f52.google.com;
Received: from mail-gw0-f52.google.com ([74.125.83.52])
by sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1R1fo7-00048B-6F
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Thu, 08 Sep 2011 14:42:28 +0000
Received: by gwj15 with SMTP id 15so24420gwj.11
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Thu, 08 Sep 2011 07:42:17 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.231.25.19 with SMTP id x19mr244666ibb.16.1315492937631; Thu,
08 Sep 2011 07:42:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.231.16.13 with HTTP; Thu, 8 Sep 2011 07:42:17 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Thu, 8 Sep 2011 07:42:17 -0700
Message-ID: <CAK5y1FhQLWXtqHfB3HymOkZ-5LdTqdEkX8bM=nOGhFeZrOPwgA@mail.gmail.com>
From: David Perry <enmaku@gmail.com>
To: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=00151773e3c040894b04ac6f1112
X-Spam-Score: -0.6 (/)
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
(enmaku[at]gmail.com)
-0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record
1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message
-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 T_TO_NO_BRKTS_FREEMAIL To: misformatted and free email service
X-Headers-End: 1R1fo7-00048B-6F
Subject: [Bitcoin-development] Alert System
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: <bitcoin-development.lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_name=bitcoin-development>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 08 Sep 2011 14:42:28 -0000
--00151773e3c040894b04ac6f1112
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
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
--00151773e3c040894b04ac6f1112
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
There has been some discussion on the new <a href=3D"http://bitcoin.stackex=
change.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, enou=
gh have voiced concerns that I've forked bitcoin/bitcoin, removed the s=
nippet of code from main.cpp that makes the questionable call and submitted=
a <a href=3D"https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/506">pull request</a>=
. On that pull request it was noted by Gavin Andresen that it merited discu=
ssion here and some kind of consensus should be reached before acting on th=
at pull request. It was also mentioned that he thought the feature was stil=
l 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 sys=
tem valuable, an unnecessary risk or merely a snippet of deprecated code? S=
hould it be removed?<br><div><br></div><div>Sources:</div><div><a href=3D"h=
ttp://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/583/what-is-the-alert-system-in-t=
he-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 href=3D"http://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/636/is-the-alert=
-system-still-in-the-main-clients-code-will-it-be-removed/711">http://bitco=
in.stackexchange.com/questions/636/is-the-alert-system-still-in-the-main-cl=
ients-code-will-it-be-removed/711</a></div>
</div>
--00151773e3c040894b04ac6f1112--
|
