{"type":"rich","version":"1.0","author_name":"npub17ty4mumkv43w8wtt0xsz2jypck0gvw0j8xrcg6tpea25z2nh7meqf4qgyd","author_url":"https://nostr.ae/npub17ty4mumkv43w8wtt0xsz2jypck0gvw0j8xrcg6tpea25z2nh7meqf4qgyd","provider_name":"njump","provider_url":"https://nostr.ae","html":"📅 Original date posted:2013-10-29\n📝 Original message:For tx reject, should there be a code for \"unknown version\"? That is,\ntx.nVersion \u003e bestKnownVersion == reject? In that case 0x40 would become\n\"non-standard transaction type\". I think \"unknown transaction type\" is a\nbit vague. Or do we want new tx messages to always be backwards compatible?\n\n0x42 and 0x43 seems a bit similar to me. The sender knows what fee was paid\n(presumably). If free transactions and fee-paying transactions end up\nhaving a unified ranking applied, then distinguishing between them in the\nreject message won't make much sense.\n\nFor block 0x11 again shall there be a separate code for \"block is from the\nfuture\"? We don't want to lose the nVersion field to people just using it\nfor nonsense, so does it make sense to reject blocks that claim to be v2 or\nv3?\n\n\n\n\nOn Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 6:37 AM, Gavin Andresen \u003cgavinandresen at gmail.com\u003ewrote:\n\n\u003e\n\u003e Thanks for the feedback, everybody, gist updated:\n\u003e   https://gist.github.com/gavinandresen/7079034\n\u003e\n\u003e Categories are:\n\u003e\n\u003e 0x01-0x0f Protocol syntax errors0x10-0x1f Protocol semantic errors0x40-0x4fServer\n\u003e policy rule\n\u003e \u003chttps://gist.github.com/gavinandresen/7079034#rejection-codes-common-to-all-message-types\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e RE: why not a varint:  because we're never ever going to run out of reject\n\u003e codes.  Eight are defined right now, if we ever defined eight more I'd be\n\u003e surprised.\n\u003e\n\u003e RE: why not use HTTP codes directly: because we'd be fitting round pegs\n\u003e into square holes.\n\u003e\n\u003e --\n\u003e --\n\u003e Gavin Andresen\n\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e ------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\u003e Android is increasing in popularity, but the open development platform that\n\u003e developers love is also attractive to malware creators. Download this white\n\u003e paper to learn more about secure code signing practices that can help keep\n\u003e Android apps secure.\n\u003e http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=65839951\u0026iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk\n\u003e _______________________________________________\n\u003e Bitcoin-development mailing list\n\u003e Bitcoin-development at lists.sourceforge.net\n\u003e https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development\n\u003e\n\u003e\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20131029/c48b5df4/attachment.html\u003e"}