Re: [bitcoin-dev] [BIP Proposal] New "feefilter" p2p message

[Alex Morcos <morcos@gmail.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1438 bytes --]

On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 6:46 PM, Luke Dashjr <luke@dashjr.org> wrote:

> On Tuesday, February 16, 2016 8:20:26 PM Alex Morcos via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> > # The feefilter message is defined as a message containing an int64_t
> where
> > pchCommand == "feefilter"
>
> What happened to extensibility? And why waste 64 bits for what is almost
> certainly a small number?
>

I thought that extensibility was already sufficient with the command string
system.  If we come up with a better version of the feefilter later we can
just give it a different command name.  This seemed to encapsulate a fairly
complete idea for now.  As for the 8 bytes, it didn't seem necessary to me
to over optimize with a custom encoding for what amounts to well under 20%
of ping traffic.  (pings are sent every 2 mins per peer, feefilters on
average every 10 mins, but when the quantized value to be sent would be the
same it is skipped)


> > # The fee filter is additive with a bloom filter for transactions so if
> an
> > SPV client were to load a bloom filter and send a feefilter message,
> > transactions would only be relayed if they passed both filters.
>
> This seems to make feefilter entirely useless for wallets?
>
>
I don't follow this comment?  Transactions aren't synced with the wallet
unless they are accepted into the mempool.  Sending feefilter messages
should not reduce the number of transactions that are accepted to the
mempool.


> Luke
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2276 bytes --]