[Bip 133] Fix typos#348
Conversation
| There are privacy concerns with deanonymizing a node by the fact that it is broadcasting identifying information about its mempool min fee. To help ameliorate this concern, the implementaion quantizes the filter value broadcast with a small amount of randomness, in addition, the messages are broadcast to different peers at individually randomly distributed times. | ||
| There are privacy concerns with deanonymizing a node by the fact that it is broadcasting identifying information about its mempool min fee. To help ameliorate this concern, the implementation quantizes the filter value broadcast with a small amount of randomness, in addition, the messages are broadcast to different peers at individually randomly distributed times. | ||
|
|
||
| If a node is using prioritisetransaction to accept transactions whose actual fee rates might fall below the node's mempool min fee, it may want to consider setting "-nofeefilter" to make sure it is exposed to all possible txid's. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
heh, i like "-nofeefilter" better! in fact i tried to make the option called "-nofeefilter" but it was broken because of the negation logic.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
"-no*" is for backward compatibility, not intended behaviour.
But in any case, I disagree with implementation-specific details being in a BIP like this.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
There is another Bitcoin Core specific detail in the section below disabled by unsetting the "-feefilter" option.
I am happy to change that as well, if @morcos agrees.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
That makes sense to me. Do you agree with just changing it to generic discussion of disabling it or not using it? I think the fact that it is optional and you should be able to do that is relevant.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think it is useful to mention that a node does not have to send a feefilter msg.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Did you check my most recent commit?
|
ACK other than preference for leaving it as nofeefilter |
|
(Considering this as NACK until @morcos unconditional ACKs.) |
|
@MarcoFalke oops. ACK |
3 participants
@morcos