Re: [Bitcoin-development] Useful bitcoin patches...

["Luke-Jr" <luke@dashjr.org>]

On Sunday, July 10, 2011 3:12:12 PM Matt Corallo wrote:
> On Sun, 2011-07-10 at 14:42 -0400, Luke-Jr wrote:
> > For the "3diff" version, I extracted and made proper git branches for
> > each logical part:
> >   hub_mode
> 
> No, no, no, no, no.  This has been discussed several times and provides
> little to no advantage for miners and has the potential to severely harm
> the network.

I just said it exists. I don't expect anyone to promote or merge it.

> > In addition, I also consider these branches valid candidates for merging:
> >   coinbaser (popens a given command and reads coinbase outputs from
> >   stdout)
> 
> Seems like you are the only one who would benifit here, as noone else
> but eligius changes coinbase output to a random set.

I suspect because they haven't figured out how. Take it or leave it.

> >   minfee_modes (internal function changes to allow specifying different
> >                 fees for relay, send, or accept-in-block)
> 
> We don't need something that just generically changes the functions to
> allow whatever fee you want, we need something more generalized to allow
> more custom settings, not just blind accept if fee is x per kb or
> something.  Sipa has suggested various things that should allow for more
> fee control by the users while still preventing users from sending
> transactions that lock their coins in limbo.

This is a step in that direction, at least, by providing the mode as input.
Since 0.4 is moving to Qt, perhaps moving GetMinFee to QtScript is 
appropriate.

> >   \-- eligius_relay (relay lower fees only Eligius will accept)
> >       \-- eligius_sendfee (send lower fees only Eligius will accept)
> 
> No, and no.  Just because you are willing to accept lower fees doesn't
> mean the incentives are right to prevent DDoS.  The fees aren't there to
> support the miners (not for a while, at least) they are there to prevent
> stupid users from DDoSing and just generally wasting everyone else's
> resources for no reason.

Again, take it or leave it, but in the meantime you're asking for trouble from 
users who feel they're being forced to pay more than they have to. Or perhaps 
rather than trouble, that decision will increase awareness of other clients 
that don't try to control the users. That could be good too.