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
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
|
Received: from sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.191]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-2.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <decker.christian@gmail.com>) id 1R49QN-0005r9-HX
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Thu, 15 Sep 2011 10:44:07 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
designates 74.125.82.175 as permitted sender)
client-ip=74.125.82.175;
envelope-from=decker.christian@gmail.com;
helo=mail-wy0-f175.google.com;
Received: from mail-wy0-f175.google.com ([74.125.82.175])
by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1R49QM-0000lq-FF
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Thu, 15 Sep 2011 10:44:07 +0000
Received: by wyh5 with SMTP id 5so1306441wyh.34
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Thu, 15 Sep 2011 03:44:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.227.156.72 with SMTP id v8mr942842wbw.110.1316083440131; Thu,
15 Sep 2011 03:44:00 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.227.127.69 with HTTP; Thu, 15 Sep 2011 03:43:20 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <201109142206.40455.luke@dashjr.org>
References: <CABsx9T2MKTYCeOqERXKBMYEqNEK4eo9jGt81gZE1=Fv=s3wEqA@mail.gmail.com>
<201109142206.40455.luke@dashjr.org>
From: Christian Decker <decker.christian@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2011 12:43:20 +0200
Message-ID: <CALxbBHXn64-JLjwaGarzf26a+80fOQHcPVK8pK8zDsS3+QFtpQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Luke-Jr <luke@dashjr.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=0016e65a0756f19e6104acf88d3e
X-Spam-Score: -0.6 (/)
X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net.
See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details.
-1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for
sender-domain
0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider
(decker.christian[at]gmail.com)
-0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record
1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message
-0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from
author's domain
0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature,
not necessarily valid
-0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature
X-Headers-End: 1R49QM-0000lq-FF
Cc: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Request review: drop misbehaving peers
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: <bitcoin-development.lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_name=bitcoin-development>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2011 10:44:07 -0000
--0016e65a0756f19e6104acf88d3e
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
I'd be happy with a sort of BitTorrent like snubbing, and dropping in
extreme cases.
Sharing blacklist decisions would be dangerous. We could even extend the
protocol to include some sort of choking/unchoking in order to warn peers
that we might drop him if he continues to misbehave.
In general I think that we have to be careful in what we consider
misbehaving, it should be really conservative to begin with, and extend the
rules over time. Making them too restrictive might make future development
difficult, not to speak of alternative clients.
Regards,
Chris
On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 4:06 AM, Luke-Jr <luke@dashjr.org> wrote:
> On Wednesday, September 14, 2011 9:57:00 PM Gavin Andresen wrote:
> > I'm looking for review of this pull request:
> > https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/517
>
> "Non-standard" transactions, or those with "insufficient" fees should not
> be
> penalised. These are properly relay/miner policy decisions, not protocol
> violations, and should be made more easily configurable, not punished for
> configuration.
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Doing More with Less: The Next Generation Virtual Desktop
> What are the key obstacles that have prevented many mid-market businesses
> from deploying virtual desktops? How do next-generation virtual desktops
> provide companies an easier-to-deploy, easier-to-manage and more affordable
> virtual desktop model.http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfnl/114/51426474/
> _______________________________________________
> Bitcoin-development mailing list
> Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
>
--0016e65a0756f19e6104acf88d3e
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I'd be happy with a sort of BitTorrent like snubbing, and dropping in e=
xtreme cases.<br>Sharing blacklist decisions would be dangerous. We could e=
ven extend the protocol to include some sort of choking/unchoking in order =
to warn peers that we might drop him if he continues to misbehave.<br>
<br>In general I think that we have to be careful in what we consider misbe=
having, it should be really conservative to begin with, and extend the rule=
s over time. Making them too restrictive might make future development diff=
icult, not to speak of alternative clients.<br>
<br>Regards,<br>Chris<br><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Thu, Sep 15, 201=
1 at 4:06 AM, Luke-Jr <span dir=3D"ltr"><<a href=3D"mailto:luke@dashjr.o=
rg">luke@dashjr.org</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quo=
te" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;=
">
<div class=3D"im">On Wednesday, September 14, 2011 9:57:00 PM Gavin Andrese=
n wrote:<br>
> I'm looking for review of this pull request:<br>
> =A0 <a href=3D"https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/517" target=3D"=
_blank">https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/517</a><br>
<br>
</div>"Non-standard" transactions, or those with "insufficie=
nt" fees should not be<br>
penalised. These are properly relay/miner policy decisions, not protocol<br=
>
violations, and should be made more easily configurable, not punished for<b=
r>
configuration.<br>
<div><div></div><div class=3D"h5"><br>
<br>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------=
---<br>
Doing More with Less: The Next Generation Virtual Desktop<br>
What are the key obstacles that have prevented many mid-market businesses<b=
r>
from deploying virtual desktops? =A0 How do next-generation virtual desktop=
s<br>
provide companies an easier-to-deploy, easier-to-manage and more affordable=
<br>
virtual desktop model.<a href=3D"http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfnl/114/514=
26474/" target=3D"_blank">http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfnl/114/51426474/<=
/a><br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Bitcoin-development mailing list<br>
<a href=3D"mailto:Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net">Bitcoin-develo=
pment@lists.sourceforge.net</a><br>
<a href=3D"https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development=
" target=3D"_blank">https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-de=
velopment</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br>
--0016e65a0756f19e6104acf88d3e--
|
