<unnamed>

Public Key

npub1qspcss06rhl7lwrhzrnv5k7w7er32htkgds2d50802eguajx4p5sp9jjz5

Profile Code

nprofile1qqsqgqugg8apmll0hpm3pek2t080v3c4t4myxc9x68nh4v5wwer2s6gprpmhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuumwdae8gtnnda3kjctvqy28wumn8ghj7un9d3shjtnyv9kh2uewd9hszrthwden5te0dehhxtnvdakqwdxtck

Publishing to

relay.snort.social

relay.damus.io

nos.lol

Last Notes

2023-06-07 20:16:34 CEST

- reply

📅 Original date posted:2019-03-05
📝 Original message:Bitcoin Core may send "reject" messages as response to "tx", "block" or
"version" messages from a network peer when the message could not be accepted.
This feature is toggled by the `-enablebip61` command line option and has been
disabled by default since Bitcoin Core version 0.18.0 (not yet released as of
time of writing). Nodes on the network can not generally be trusted to send
valid ("reject") messages, so this should only ever be used when connected to a
trusted node. At this time, I am not aware of any software that requires this
feature, and I would like to remove if from Bitcoin Core to make the codebase
slimmer, easier to understand and maintain. Let us know if your application
relies on this feature and you can not use any of the recommended alternatives:
* Testing or debugging of implementations of the Bitcoin P2P network protocol
should be done by inspecting the log messages that are produced by a recent
version of Bitcoin Core. Bitcoin Core logs debug messages
(`-debug=<category>`) to a stream (`-printtoconsole`) or to a file
(`-debuglogfile=<debug.log>`).
* Testing the validity of a block can be achieved by specific RPCs:
- `submitblock`
- `getblocktemplate` with `'mode'` set to `'proposal'` for blocks with
potentially invalid POW
* Testing the validity of a transaction can be achieved by specific RPCs:
- `sendrawtransaction`
- `testmempoolaccept`
* Wallets should not use the absence of "reject" messages to indicate a
transaction has propagated the network, nor should wallets use "reject"
messages to set transaction fees. Wallets should rather use fee estimation
to determine transaction fees and set replace-by-fee if desired. Thus, they
could wait until the transaction has confirmed (taking into account the fee
target they set (compare the RPC `estimatesmartfee`)) or listen for the
transaction announcement by other network peers to check for propagation.
I propose to remove "reject" messages from Bitcoin Core 0.19.0 unless there are
valid concerns about its removal.
Marco

2023-06-07 19:53:57 CEST

- reply

📅 Original date posted:2016-10-15
📝 Original message:On Sat, Sep 24, 2016 at 11:41 AM, Tom via bitcoin-dev
<bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> I'd suggest saying that "Share alike" is required and "Attribution" is
> optional.
Please note there is no CC license that requires SA and at the same
time has BY as an option.
Generally, I think CC0 is best suited as license for BIPs. If authors
are scared that they won't get proper attribution, they can choose
MIT/BSD or CC-BY. Other than that I don't think that more restrictive
licenses are suitable for BIPs. The BIP repo seems like the wrong
place to promote Open Access (e.g. by choosing a CC-BY-SA license).
BIP 2 allows such licenses, but does not recommend them, which is
fine.
I think that BIP 2 in its current form (
https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0002.mediawiki
@6e47447b ) looks good and addressed the feedback which was
accumulated last year. If there are no objections I'd suggest to move
forward with BIP 2 in the next couple of days/weeks.
Marco