Will <will@phase.net> wrote:

>> In fact, I think the alert system should relay (note, NOT display)
>messages
>> *regardless of the key used*, so it isn't yet another "our client
>gets
>> special
>> status" thing, and can be used for other clients as well.
>>
>>
>> Be careful though, if you relay everything, it suddenly *does* have
>DDoS
>potential...
>
>no more than other messages such as transactions.

Only verified and valid trandactions are forwarded which is desired as it costs the sender a fee if he attempts to spam, messages have no such penalty.

>
>>Maybe require a proof-of-work then?
>
>kind of defeats the purpose of the alert if it takes a long time to
>issue
>one.
>
>I think leave the alert in, but relay alert messages even if they don't
>use
>the correct key.  This means that if we later decide to add new keys to
>the
>alert root trust then older clients will still relay these.
>
>my .02btc
>
>Will

I'm for keeping it in there as well, maybe even extend it with a mechanism to sign other certificates giving alternative client developers the ability to issue their own alerts. Think ssl certificates...

Regards,
Chris

>------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Doing More with Less: The Next Generation Virtual Desktop
>What are the key obstacles that have prevented many mid-market
>businesses
>from deploying virtual desktops?   How do next-generation virtual
>desktops
>provide companies an easier-to-deploy, easier-to-manage and more
>affordable
>virtual desktop
>model.http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfnl/114/51426474/_______________________________________________
>Bitcoin-development mailing list
>Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
>https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development

--
Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.