rich1.0npub17ty4mumkv43w8wtt0xsz2jypck0gvw0j8xrcg6tpea25z2nh7meqf4qgydhttps://nostr.ae/npub17ty4mumkv43w8wtt0xsz2jypck0gvw0j8xrcg6tpea25z2nh7meqf4qgydnjumphttps://nostr.ae📅 Original date posted:2013-10-29 📝 Original message:For tx reject, should there be a code for "unknown version"? That is, tx.nVersion > bestKnownVersion == reject? In that case 0x40 would become "non-standard transaction type". I think "unknown transaction type" is a bit vague. Or do we want new tx messages to always be backwards compatible? 0x42 and 0x43 seems a bit similar to me. The sender knows what fee was paid (presumably). If free transactions and fee-paying transactions end up having a unified ranking applied, then distinguishing between them in the reject message won't make much sense. For block 0x11 again shall there be a separate code for "block is from the future"? We don't want to lose the nVersion field to people just using it for nonsense, so does it make sense to reject blocks that claim to be v2 or v3? On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 6:37 AM, Gavin Andresen <gavinandresen at gmail.com>wrote: > > Thanks for the feedback, everybody, gist updated: > https://gist.github.com/gavinandresen/7079034 > > Categories are: > > 0x01-0x0f Protocol syntax errors0x10-0x1f Protocol semantic errors0x40-0x4fServer > policy rule > <https://gist.github.com/gavinandresen/7079034#rejection-codes-common-to-all-message-types> > > RE: why not a varint: because we're never ever going to run out of reject > codes. Eight are defined right now, if we ever defined eight more I'd be > surprised. > > RE: why not use HTTP codes directly: because we'd be fitting round pegs > into square holes. > > -- > -- > Gavin Andresen > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Android is increasing in popularity, but the open development platform that > developers love is also attractive to malware creators. Download this white > paper to learn more about secure code signing practices that can help keep > Android apps secure. > http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=65839951&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk > _______________________________________________ > Bitcoin-development mailing list > Bitcoin-development at lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20131029/c48b5df4/attachment.html>