[Bip 133] Fix typos #348

pull MarcoFalke wants to merge 2 commits into bitcoin:master from MarcoFalke:patch-2 changing 1 files +4 −4

MarcoFalke commented at 10:09 PM on March 6, 2016: member

@morcos
Update bip-0133.mediawiki b3a93c4201

in bip-0133.mediawiki:None in b3a93c4201 outdated

  34 |  Feefilter messages are not sent to whitelisted peers if the "-whitelistforcerelay" option is set. In that case, transactions are intended to be relayed even if they are not accepted to the mempool.
  35 |  
  36 | -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.
  37 | +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.
  38 |  
  39 | -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.

morcos commented at 1:51 AM on March 7, 2016:

heh, i like "-nofeefilter" better! in fact i tried to make the option called "-nofeefilter" but it was broken because of the negation logic.

luke-jr commented at 2:11 AM on March 7, 2016:

"-no*" is for backward compatibility, not intended behaviour.

But in any case, I disagree with implementation-specific details being in a BIP like this.

MarcoFalke commented at 8:43 AM on March 7, 2016:

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.

morcos commented at 11:53 AM on March 7, 2016:

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.

MarcoFalke commented at 12:04 PM on March 7, 2016:

I think it is useful to mention that a node does not have to send a feefilter msg.

MarcoFalke commented at 12:04 PM on March 7, 2016:

Did you check my most recent commit?

morcos commented at 1:52 AM on March 7, 2016: member

ACK other than preference for leaving it as nofeefilter
luke-jr commented at 2:12 AM on March 7, 2016: member

(Considering this as NACK until @morcos unconditional ACKs.)
luke-jr added the label Proposed BIP modification on Mar 7, 2016
bip 133: remove implementation detail fa02af6e89
morcos commented at 12:52 PM on March 7, 2016: member

@MarcoFalke oops.

ACK
luke-jr referenced this in commit 7cd2c104fd on Mar 7, 2016
luke-jr merged this on Mar 7, 2016
luke-jr closed this on Mar 7, 2016
MarcoFalke deleted the branch on Mar 7, 2016

Contributors

MarcoFalke

morcos

luke-jr

Labels

Proposed BIP modification