> @@ -1276,13 +1278,13 @@ bool CBlock::AcceptBlock()
> // Get prev block index
> map::iterator mi =
> mapBlockIndex.find(hashPrevBlock);
> if (mi == mapBlockIndex.end())
> - return error("AcceptBlock() : prev block not found");
> + return DoS(10, error("AcceptBlock() : pre
On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 4:08 PM, Luke-Jr wrote:
> Is it certain that it cannot be triggered by a peer having some huge number
> more blocks than you?
Might be better to have a global flag that indicates when the node
thinks its current with the network (this could have other UI impacts,
like lett
What about this one?
@@ -1276,13 +1278,13 @@ bool CBlock::AcceptBlock()
// Get prev block index
map::iterator mi =
mapBlockIndex.find(hashPrevBlock);
if (mi == mapBlockIndex.end())
-return error("AcceptBlock() : prev block not found");
+return DoS(10, error("AcceptB
> It's not future. It's presently allowed in blocks. Which means it's perfectly
> valid to relay (and also perfectly value to NOT relay or accept). Ergo,
> shouldn't be punished.
You're absolutely right.
And you're right about the 99 confirmations, too-- I was thinking
blocks again, not transacti
On Monday, September 26, 2011 5:53 PM, "Luke-Jr" wrote:
> It's not future. It's presently allowed in blocks. Which means it's
> perfectly valid to relay (and also perfectly value to NOT relay or
> accept). Ergo, shouldn't be punished.
Yeah, my node has always relayed these transactions. The limit
On Monday, September 26, 2011 5:38:41 PM Gavin Andresen wrote:
> > The first one I was referring to is a *transaction* with "non-standard"
> > sig op count, which is AFAIK allowed in blocks, just not accepted by the
> > mainline rules.
>
> I sit corrected. The context is:
> // Checking ECDSA s
> The first one I was referring to is a *transaction* with "non-standard" sig op
> count, which is AFAIK allowed in blocks, just not accepted by the mainline
> rules.
I sit corrected. The context is:
// Checking ECDSA signatures is a CPU bottleneck, so to avoid
denial-of-service
// attacks
On Monday, September 26, 2011 4:47:06 PM Gavin Andresen wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 3:17 PM, Luke-Jr wrote:
> > +return DoS(10, error("AcceptToMemoryPool() : transaction with
> > out-of- bounds SigOpCount"));
> > +return DoS(10, error("ConnectInputs() : tried t
On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 3:17 PM, Luke-Jr wrote:
> + return DoS(10, error("AcceptToMemoryPool() : transaction with out-of-
> bounds SigOpCount"));
> + return DoS(10, error("ConnectInputs() : tried to
> spend coinbase at depth %d", pindexBlock->nHeight - pindex->nHeight
+return DoS(10, error("AcceptToMemoryPool() : transaction with out-of-
bounds SigOpCount"));
+return DoS(10, error("ConnectInputs() : tried to
spend coinbase at depth %d", pindexBlock->nHeight - pindex->nHeight));
+return DoS(10, error("AcceptBlock() : prev
10 matches
Mail list logo
