Any reason not to use actual HTTP codes?  I'm not aware of any major 
deficiency in them.  Most of them won't apply to us, which is fine, they 
don't seem to apply to HTTP either.  We can extend the scheme on our own 
if we find a good reason to.

That implies 16 bits, or a varint.  I would avoid a string or varstring 
here; we already have a text field.  Varint vs. 16 bits is a minor 
issue, and arguments can be made in both directions.  I flipped a coin 
and got heads, so I'll say varint.

Gavin Andresen wrote:
> RE: use HTTP-like status codes:
>
> Okey dokey, I'll add a one-byte machine-readable HTTP-like status 
> code. Unless y'all want a 32-bit status code.  Or maybe a varint. Or a 
> three-character numeric string. I really and truly don't care, but I 
> am writing this code right now so whatever you want, decide quickly.
>
> If anybody has strong feelings about what the reject categories should 
> be, then please take the time to write a specific list, I can't read 
> your mind....
>
>
> -- 
> --
> Gavin Andresen
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> October Webinars: Code for Performance
> Free Intel webinars can help you accelerate application performance.
> Explore tips for MPI, OpenMP, advanced profiling, and more. Get the most from
> the latest Intel processors and coprocessors. See abstracts and register >
> http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=60135991&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Bitcoin-development mailing list
> Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development