From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.191] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-4.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1R4BUe-0002SS-LL for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Thu, 15 Sep 2011 12:56:40 +0000 X-ACL-Warn: Received: from serv.jerviss.org ([12.47.47.47] helo=inana.jerviss.org) by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.76) id 1R4BUd-0005K5-TP for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Thu, 15 Sep 2011 12:56:40 +0000 Received: from [156.99.25.142] ([156.99.25.142]) (username: kjj authenticated by PLAIN symmetric_key_bits=0) by inana.jerviss.org (8.13.6/8.12.11) with ESMTP id p8FCuOjG017619 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 15 Sep 2011 07:56:29 -0500 Message-ID: <4E71F5F8.2020807@jerviss.org> Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2011 07:56:24 -0500 From: kjj User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:6.0.2) Gecko/20110902 SeaMonkey/2.3.3 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Luke-Jr References: <201109142206.40455.luke@dashjr.org> In-Reply-To: <201109142206.40455.luke@dashjr.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Received-SPF: pass (inana.jerviss.org: 156.99.25.142 is authenticated by a trusted mechanism) X-Spam-Score: -1.8 (-) 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 -0.5 RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay domain 0.2 AWL AWL: From: address is in the auto white-list X-Headers-End: 1R4BUd-0005K5-TP 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: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2011 12:56:40 -0000 Luke-Jr 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. > > A few non-standard transactions are probably legitimate. A whole bunch of them are probably not. I would think that assigning a point or two of badness to a peer sending one is pretty reasonable, with the understanding that we would need to adjust that as the network evolves.