I don't understand the benefit of allowing a peer to relay consensus invalid transaction.
[bitcoin] Merged PR from ajtowns: net, validation: don't punish peers for consensus-invalid txs https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33050
Discussion
// Tx failures never trigger disconnections/bans.
// This is so that network splits aren't triggered
// either due to non-consensus relay policies (such as
// non-standard DER encodings or non-null dummy
// arguments) or due to new consensus rules introduced in
// soft forks.
I think it makes sense. Node A doesn't have a sf that node B has. Node A receives a tx that violates such rule, but it's fine to them. Node B, after receiving such tx disconnects A. If this happens consistently throughout the network, a split may follow.
exactly, banning peers that send consensus invalid transactions could result in network splits after soft forks.
hi -- we were trying to zap you -- but it looks like you haven’t set up a NIP-05 or ⚡ lightning address yet — grab one free at https://rizful.com .. then pls reply here and we will try zapping you...
1. What if some peers keep relaying consensus-invalid transactions (no soft fork)?
2. Why did this split not happen during last soft fork?