Darn good question. If the protection fails, would it be better for it
to 'fail hard', leaving people complaining bitcoin won't stay
connected!
Or fail soft, so you at least have a couple of connections.
I think fail hard is better-- we'll immediately know about the
problem, and can fix
A few thoughts:
Should the DoS protection auto-disable if the node has less than a
minimum number of connections? The idea being that if our node seems to
be kicking /everybody /off the roster maybe there is something wrong
with the protections.
It would be nice if the node sent a message
I hate to get specific about potential attacks on a public mailing
list, but I think the debate over what to do with non-standard
transactions means we need to.
I agree with Gregory; if there are NO rules about what transactions
peers can send at you, then an attacker can trivially get around
If I think you're trying to DoS me, why would I be nice to you?
The issue is, what if I'm not trying to DoS you, but something went wrong?
think response messages would just give an attacker another potential
attack vector, and it is clear from the debug.log what triggers a ban.
Only clear
4 matches
Mail list logo
