Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 77EA9114F for ; Wed, 17 Feb 2016 00:46:38 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from zinan.dashjr.org (zinan.dashjr.org [192.3.11.21]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2BE87121 for ; Wed, 17 Feb 2016 00:46:38 +0000 (UTC) Received: from ishibashi.localnet (unknown [IPv6:2001:470:5:265:61b6:56a6:b03d:28d6]) (Authenticated sender: luke-jr) by zinan.dashjr.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 075E838A2305; Wed, 17 Feb 2016 00:46:26 +0000 (UTC) X-Hashcash: 1:25:160217:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org::kEdnJsQfeH+DITip:ar375 X-Hashcash: 1:25:160217:morcos@gmail.com::OUAdxDH1WSsS40EH:CuJP From: Luke Dashjr To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org, Alex Morcos Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2016 00:46:16 +0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.13.7 (Linux/4.1.18-gentoo; KDE/4.14.8; x86_64; ; ) References: In-Reply-To: X-PGP-Key-Fingerprint: E463 A93F 5F31 17EE DE6C 7316 BD02 9424 21F4 889F X-PGP-Key-ID: BD02942421F4889F X-PGP-Keyserver: hkp://pgp.mit.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-15" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <201602170046.17166.luke@dashjr.org> X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_SBL, RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=no version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] [BIP Proposal] New "feefilter" p2p message X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Development Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2016 00:46:38 -0000 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 filter is additive with a bloom filter for transactions so if an > SPV client were to load a bloom filter and send a feefilter message, > transactions would only be relayed if they passed both filters. This seems to make feefilter entirely useless for wallets? Luke