Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
	designates 209.85.214.47 as permitted sender)
	client-ip=209.85.214.47; envelope-from=joel.kaartinen@gmail.com;
	helo=mail-bw0-f47.google.com; 
From: Joel Joonatan Kaartinen <joel.kaartinen@gmail.com>
To: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
In-Reply-To: <CABsx9T1_rOTd+sSgBTnj2iGKC2t7Rrh_pFAGtmWwjAKxaT0jdQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CABsx9T2MKTYCeOqERXKBMYEqNEK4eo9jGt81gZE1=Fv=s3wEqA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CANEZrP3FFEK0xrZqQkPyi8uoyb=XiPU7fSJDcGCLxiGH2uh3dQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CABsx9T0Eowp6_mTcggCz3tivRL0NsqyyxqingmPzZ2qkJnU9EA@mail.gmail.com>
	<4E71F6D6.2090208@justmoon.de>
	<CABsx9T1_rOTd+sSgBTnj2iGKC2t7Rrh_pFAGtmWwjAKxaT0jdQ@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2011 15:57:20 +0300
Message-ID: <1316177840.15775.15.camel@mei>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Request review: drop misbehaving peers
Precedence: list

> 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 it.  Fail soft makes me nervous because  I think
> that would make it more likely a bug splits the network (and,
> therefore, the blockchain).

My own preference would be to fail hard with detection of the problem
and notification of the user if there's a GUI connected and/or running.

- Joel