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
|
Received: from sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.192]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-4.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <gmaxwell@gmail.com>) id 1VbZLB-0002pN-7S
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Wed, 30 Oct 2013 17:13:57 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
designates 209.85.217.182 as permitted sender)
client-ip=209.85.217.182; envelope-from=gmaxwell@gmail.com;
helo=mail-lb0-f182.google.com;
Received: from mail-lb0-f182.google.com ([209.85.217.182])
by sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1VbZLA-00047Q-A9
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Wed, 30 Oct 2013 17:13:57 +0000
Received: by mail-lb0-f182.google.com with SMTP id w6so1492087lbh.13
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Wed, 30 Oct 2013 10:13:49 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.112.64.7 with SMTP id k7mr1856620lbs.43.1383153229557; Wed,
30 Oct 2013 10:13:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.112.89.72 with HTTP; Wed, 30 Oct 2013 10:13:49 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CANEZrP2dQT6Evgm0UwvSKdgVsSnb_VF6fovVo0n0eKDM5ARZpw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <274a1888-276c-4aa6-a818-68f548fbe0fa@me.com>
<9DCDB8F6-E3B2-426B-A41E-087E66B3821A@gmail.com>
<526B45DB.2030200@jerviss.org>
<CANEZrP2dQT6Evgm0UwvSKdgVsSnb_VF6fovVo0n0eKDM5ARZpw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2013 10:13:49 -0700
Message-ID: <CAAS2fgSAtjB0EMgBG0AphWADxCwLhutGFJEx74mLC=zCEY3QAA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell@gmail.com>
To: Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
X-Spam-Score: -1.6 (-)
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
(gmaxwell[at]gmail.com)
-0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record
0.0 URIBL_BLOCKED ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to URIBL was blocked.
See
http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/DnsBlocklists#dnsbl-block
for more information. [URIs: plan99.net]
-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: 1VbZLA-00047Q-A9
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>,
kjj <bitcoin-devel@jerviss.org>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Feedback requested: "reject" p2p message
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: Wed, 30 Oct 2013 17:13:57 -0000
On Sun, Oct 27, 2013 at 7:32 AM, Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net> wrote:
> I'm really looking forward to this. Currently bitcoinj gets a small but
> steady stream of bug reports of the form "my transaction did not propagate".
> It's flaky because the library picks one peer to send the transaction to,
> and then watches it propagate across the network. But if that selected peer
> refuses the tx for whatever reason, that propagation never comes, and
Actually, we'll probably need to explicitly document that a failure to
reject is by no means a promise to forward.
If a node is using priority queued rate limiting for its relaying then
it might "accept" a transaction from you, but have it fall out of its
memory pool (due to higher priority txn arriving, or getting
restarted, etc.) before it ever gets a chance to send it on to any
other peers.
Finding out that it rejected is still useful information, but even
assuming all nodes are honest and well behaved I don't think you could
count on its absence to be sure of forwarding.
|
