On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 6:46 PM, Luke Dashjr <luke@dashjr.org> wrote:

On Tuesday, February 16, 2016 8:20:26 PM Alex Morcos via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> # The feefilter message is defined as a message containing an int64_t where
> pchCommand == "feefilter"

What happened to extensibility? And why waste 64 bits for what is almost
certainly a small number?

I thought that extensibility was already sufficient with the command string system. If we come up with a better version of the feefilter later we can just give it a different command name. This seemed to encapsulate a fairly complete idea for now. As for the 8 bytes, it didn't seem necessary to me to over optimize with a custom encoding for what amounts to well under 20% of ping traffic. (pings are sent every 2 mins per peer, feefilters on average every 10 mins, but when the quantized value to be sent would be the same it is skipped)

> # The fee filter is additive with a bloom filter for transactions so if an
> SPV client were to load a bloom filter and send a feefilter message,
> transactions would only be relayed if they passed both filters.

This seems to make feefilter entirely useless for wallets?

I don't follow this comment? Transactions aren't synced with the wallet unless they are accepted into the mempool. Sending feefilter messages should not reduce the number of transactions that are accepted to the mempool.

Luke