feefilter message

The five-minute read

One action, walked through

1. Open BIP 133 and read the status line before the examples.
2. Write down the rule in one sentence. A fair version of that sentence is: Add a new message, "feefilter", which serves to instruct peers not to send "inv"'s to the node for transactions with fees below the specified fee rate.
3. Name the object that changes: feefilter message.
4. Ask what an old client, an old contract, or an offline counterparty does. If the document is silent, the silence is part of the design.

The argument, unpacked

What has to be true

• You are implementing BIP 133 at the status the text itself states: Deployed.
• The object that has to change is feefilter message. A neighbouring document with a similar name is not this one.
• Measurements of delay in one year do not travel with the specification.

What happened after the paper

The source marks this deployed. That is a statement about the text, not a promise that every wallet or node has shipped it. Later documents can narrow, replace, or ignore this one. Cite the number you mean.

What to check before you use the idea

• Which message does feefilter message add, and which old peer must still be answered?
• What does a node do when the short form fails and the full object is required?
• Which names are normative: feefilter message?

Terms

BIP 133

The public text titled feefilter message.

Deployed

The document's own label for how finished the text is. It is not a market fact.

The problem the paper names

A node that cannot fetch, filter, or relay the data it is supposed to validate is not a peer of the network the paper describes.

What the design proposes

• Add a new message, "feefilter", which serves to instruct peers not to send "inv"'s to the node for transactions with fees below the specified fee rate.
• The concept of a limited mempool was introduced in Bitcoin Core 0.12 to provide protection against attacks or spam transactions of low fees that are not being mined.
• A reject filter was also introduced to help prevent repeated requests for the same transaction that might have been recently rejected for insufficient fee.

How the mechanism is specified

• Taken from the specification, the next constraint is: The concept of a limited mempool was introduced in Bitcoin Core 0.12 to provide protection against attacks or spam transactions of low fees that are not being mined.
• Locate feefilter message in BIP 133 and apply it to one transaction or call.
• Then check the failure the class of rule always has: a node that did not upgrade, a reverted call, a replayed signature, or a peer that does not speak the message.

What this page does not treat as proven

• A peer protocol is not a consensus rule. A peer can disconnect. A block is still valid or not on its own.
• Measurements of delay in one year do not travel with the specification.
• The source marks this deployed. That is a statement about the text, not a promise that every wallet or node has shipped it.

Why a venture studio still reads it

Use BIP 133 when a pitch says 'feefilter message' without saying whether the rule is consensus, policy, or an interface. The number is the citation. The pitch is not.