00:08 <dzxzg> What is the rationale for marking peers as Misbehaving() as opposed to dropping malformed messages on the ground? if we (the royal node) know something is harmful and we are not processing it anyways, then why also disprefer the peer? It would make more sense to me to impose some cost on peers that ask us to do things that are expensive but which we do anyways, but I'm not sure I follow why we should discourage peers that act out-of-protocol in ways we

00:08 <dzxzg> already ignore. e.g. sending us invalid cmpct blocks

00:10 <dzxzg> if the peer is malicious, why send the invalid message that we ignore at all? it mainly seems to punish peers whose software is buggy / not strictly protocol conforming rather than peers that are deliberately causing harm

00:10 <dzxzg> *it mainly -> Marking as Misbehaving()

00:12 <dzxzg> (I am thinking about this in the context of #35321 which is totally consistent with how Misbehaving() is used in general, and how it's already being used for the happy-path compact blocks, so given status quo seems a reasonable change, but looking at it I felt uncertain that I understood Misbehaving clearly)

00:12 <corebot> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/35321 | p2p: Misbehave on invalid compact block in optimistic reconstruction by ViniciusCestarii · Pull Request #35321 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub