On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 12:46 AM, Luke Dashjr via bitcoin-dev
wrote:
> 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?
I did
On Wednesday, February 17, 2016 2:28:31 AM Alex Morcos wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 6:46 PM, Luke Dashjr wrote:
> > 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
> >
> > >
On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 6:46 PM, Luke Dashjr wrote:
> 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 bi
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 fil
Hi,
I'm proposing the addition of a new optional p2p message to help reduce
unnecessary network traffic. The draft BIP is available here and pasted
below:
https://gist.github.com/morcos/9aab223c443c9258c979
The goal of this message is to take advantage of the fact that when a node
has reached it
