1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
|
Return-Path: <bip@mattwhitlock.name>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 85D50B13
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Thu, 9 Jul 2015 23:55:06 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from resqmta-ch2-10v.sys.comcast.net
(resqmta-ch2-10v.sys.comcast.net [69.252.207.42])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 174FE9C
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Thu, 9 Jul 2015 23:55:04 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from resomta-ch2-19v.sys.comcast.net ([69.252.207.115])
by resqmta-ch2-10v.sys.comcast.net with comcast
id qPul1q0062VvR6D01Pv3JS; Thu, 09 Jul 2015 23:55:03 +0000
Received: from crushinator.localnet
([IPv6:2601:186:c000:825e:e9f4:8901:87c7:24a0])
by resomta-ch2-19v.sys.comcast.net with comcast
id qPv11q0064eLRLv01Pv295; Thu, 09 Jul 2015 23:55:03 +0000
From: Matt Whitlock <bip@mattwhitlock.name>
To: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>, bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
Date: Thu, 09 Jul 2015 19:55 -0400
Message-ID: <1828256.77UID9hUjK@crushinator>
User-Agent: KMail/4.14.10 (Linux/4.0.5-gentoo; KDE/4.14.10; x86_64; ; )
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=comcast.net;
s=q20140121; t=1436486103;
bh=7vUjQHISNlZjzA5EXANfG6U3LJpMn43IJ8gm0QSB8MM=;
h=Received:Received:From:To:Subject:Date:Message-ID:MIME-Version:
Content-Type;
b=wPapgEXNfuKmZlSby9nE0z+lFKwCqhdeiEksPlyJuvHCjmcn4sCavmFQP3RR0+qPv
rNJtylKKBNOYq6Gypk9R7UgKMvTVVWrKvBNi9A2DZLXpPeo1C8P5vlLzGe8luRVrDX
TyElL13eXqy+ZeEk52uF6Y+qXRuMdHj1rKPxKhQWYkEiNDeCYVOMgMoIuLkURekJUF
fm12QbMAlJV75Y8AMVWWf1nH++gZVUJMrXvSDvKhyb3ptxWDjSnNck7moo8Vu3CgQv
7alL+pr7+UEhkQroF8ink5Xj3TUp/UgCRalDA/Sbi1TQuAHie+rGK7botSuDfXHxwn
4XrKx6iM6TeWA==
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,
DKIM_VALID, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,
T_FROM_12LTRDOM autolearn=ham version=3.3.1
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
smtp1.linux-foundation.org
Subject: [bitcoin-dev] Can we penalize peers who relay rejected replacement
txs?
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Bitcoin Development Discussion <bitcoin-dev.lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/options/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 09 Jul 2015 23:55:06 -0000
I'm presently running my full node with Peter Todd's full replace-by-fee patch set [1]. I am seeing a LOT of messages in the log about replacement transactions being rejected due to their paying less in fees than the transactions they would replace. I understand that this could happen legitimately from time to time, due to my node's receiving a replacing transaction prior to receiving the replaced transaction; however, due to the ongoing spam attack, I am seeing a steady stream of these rejection messages, dozens per second at times. I am wondering if each replacement rejection ought to penalize the peer who relayed the offending transaction, and if the penalty builds up enough, then the peer could be temporarily banned, similar to how other "misbehaving" peers are treated.
[1] https://github.com/petertodd/bitcoin/commits/replace-by-fee-v0.10.2
|
