Re: [Bitcoin-development] Feedback requested: reject p2p message

2013-10-29 Thread Peter Todd
On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 10:55:59PM -1000, Warren Togami Jr. wrote: How about rejection codes to notify you that you have been rate limited? ACK However note that for the rejection messages defined these are actually covered by the too-low-fees rejection codes. What would would want a rate

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Feedback requested: reject p2p message

2013-10-29 Thread Mike Hearn
For tx reject, should there be a code for unknown version? That is, tx.nVersion bestKnownVersion == reject? In that case 0x40 would become non-standard transaction type. I think unknown transaction type is a bit vague. Or do we want new tx messages to always be backwards compatible? 0x42 and

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Feedback requested: reject p2p message

2013-10-29 Thread Peter Todd
On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 10:52:31AM +0100, Mike Hearn wrote: For block 0x11 again shall there be a separate code for block is from the future? We don't want to lose the nVersion field to people just using it for nonsense, so does it make sense to reject blocks that claim to be v2 or v3? That

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Feedback requested: reject p2p message

2013-10-29 Thread Peter Todd
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 Peter Todd p...@petertodd.org wrote: On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 10:52:31AM +0100, Mike Hearn wrote: For block 0x11 again shall there be a separate code for block is from the future? We don't want to lose the nVersion field to people just using it

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Feedback requested: reject p2p message

2013-10-29 Thread Mike Hearn
Yes, exactly. That's the point. As you well know I think the whole soft-fork mechanism is wrong and should not be used. If the rules change, your node is *supposed* to end up on a chain fork and trigger an alert to you, that's pretty much the whole purpose of Bitcoin's design. Undermining that

Re: [Bitcoin-development] On soft-forks and hard-forks

2013-10-29 Thread Peter Todd
On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 12:38 PM, Peter Todd p...@petertodd.org wrote: Peter Todd p...@petertodd.org wrote: On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 10:52:31AM +0100, Mike Hearn wrote: For block 0x11 again shall there be a separate code for block is from the future? We don't want to lose the nVersion

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Feedback requested: reject p2p message

2013-10-29 Thread Gavin Andresen
On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 10:32 PM, Mike Hearn m...@plan99.net wrote: Yes, exactly. That's the point. As you well know I think the whole soft-fork mechanism is wrong and should not be used. If the rules change, your node is *supposed* to end up on a chain fork and trigger an alert to you,