It can be argued that BIP125#1 signaling is honored because
descendants of signaling transactions are replaceable by RBF.
Regardless, since there are multiple details in our RBF policy that are
not captured in BIP125, point to our doc instead.
fa25f43ac5 p2p: Remove BIP61 reject messages (MarcoFalke)
Pull request description:
Reject messages (BIP 61) appear in the following settings:
* Parsing of reject messages (in case `-debug=net` is set, off by default). This has only been used for a single `LogPrint` call for several releases now. Such logging is completely meaningless to us and should thus be removed.
* The sending of reject messages (in case `-enablebip61` is set, off by default). This can be used to debug a node that is under our control. Instead of hacking this debugging into the p2p protocol, it could be more easily achieved by parsing the debug log. (Use `-printtoconsole` to have it as stream, or read from the `debug.log` file like our python function `assert_debug_log` in the test framework does)
Having to maintain all of this logic and code to accommodate debugging, which can be achieved by other means a lot easier, is a burden. It makes review on net processing changes a lot harder, since the reject message logic has to be carried around without introducing any errors or DOS vectors.
ACKs for top commit:
jnewbery:
utACK fa25f43ac5
laanwj:
I'm still not 100% convinced that I like getting rid of BIP61 conceptually, but apparently everyone wants it, code review ACK fa25f43ac5.
ryanofsky:
Code review ACK fa25f43ac5
Tree-SHA512: daf55254202925e56be3d6cfb3c1c804e7a82cecb1dd1e5bd7b472bae989fd68ac4f21ec53fc46751353056fd645f7f877bebcb0b40920257991423a3d99e0be
glozow