Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F2406AC7 for ; Sun, 20 Oct 2019 05:13:15 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-qk1-f171.google.com (mail-qk1-f171.google.com [209.85.222.171]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3DAEC14D for ; Sun, 20 Oct 2019 05:13:15 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-qk1-f171.google.com with SMTP id p4so9197653qkf.5 for ; Sat, 19 Oct 2019 22:13:15 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=voskuil-org.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=content-transfer-encoding:from:mime-version:subject:date:message-id :references:cc:in-reply-to:to; bh=dVntKGnj6IAFG9p1VW7U38dH7Tqbgg3rrOv6JFOJUjs=; b=AnpVmywiUc5uKhrD4wHE7tAcK7h48gRJV7fYS5s75va2fxM4x0O37XWVpv2WrorP6L 76zf69tNnApDlcZMUcIViepdue99/ZPFoPcf4hudBef+R14spGMHnxZy2tp32woAH18J I4G1LSpJ6cEDSfQMIBRtOHFfK1Ejvzzu6jfPf1lKgAjvCSmBpxxnN9uOzZ80TNtk9FJ9 sPGy6BrXYEix3A+cNfUDloGNq/N80OmJ0ZsA1n5Il4802ybv7AWpBYa3j9l9sjoJDcPs IyE+xAU5z4tzfRkl6FqhIxzHfO8EO9l3Ld1Q0jrCoOK81w5DZEZWHZJIHeBoHoOazCVM BmBA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:content-transfer-encoding:from:mime-version :subject:date:message-id:references:cc:in-reply-to:to; bh=dVntKGnj6IAFG9p1VW7U38dH7Tqbgg3rrOv6JFOJUjs=; b=ipNvxWCCn4GQYC4kNcKW4EAyT5JRWwTX4RUlHjRsgUtaiujEgK84U8xONWRhjYJlrI nzRY/yKREir8ISmMOxdbztVRTm+nTbQ6WP+93/ynaLJJqli0HTA4QL4sfkqudrXRmiww AVMbWN+TaqBosCxxMzFMb8CY3v/vVZ/FZPU/GLqYnf8dnuc9SUzNrLNDWFaEnzr2ri5D 1HGJmsnP2BKfYDn1ghck8WYE4nXXvHcrCjUbr+9z+Q7O2HhMv2yaD9dSCC4XatWMJ4RX YzWTfs4aq9mFpa81Lr7KJfUjPPMQ/l6xFQpEYpb22/CWU5FmHC210Onb9eqCuaOmlmE8 PN7w== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAVzG81z187s6hi1iogW/wTuxKb5DxN84OV3XG3gBrF1WAjruvLr GCFnxr6ElK1fMq1pfOMfr1GMHBCnViY= X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqw2soYPUmmCVReG/BAxXPfUboJN8kQAjsbFpCHBWd60jXeHWYJ1v9kVcgU//ZS2llA6QPHMpg== X-Received: by 2002:a05:620a:347:: with SMTP id t7mr11754526qkm.356.1571548394028; Sat, 19 Oct 2019 22:13:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ?IPv6:2600:380:bc23:b42c:9489:8da7:15fc:4cdf? ([2600:380:bc23:b42c:9489:8da7:15fc:4cdf]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id m15sm4710775qka.104.2019.10.19.22.13.13 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Sat, 19 Oct 2019 22:13:13 -0700 (PDT) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-C837301A-A457-42A9-B13A-2665F191B174 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Eric Voskuil Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0) Date: Sun, 20 Oct 2019 01:13:12 -0400 Message-Id: <8C87E9AF-A064-42BB-AB9D-7477C10625BF@voskuil.org> References: <20191018224535.wy6f55grpfk2sncq@ganymede> In-Reply-To: <20191018224535.wy6f55grpfk2sncq@ganymede> To: "David A. Harding" X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (17A860) X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, HTML_MESSAGE, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org X-Mailman-Approved-At: Sun, 20 Oct 2019 08:36:24 +0000 Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Removal of reject network messages from Bitcoin Core (BIP61) X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 20 Oct 2019 05:13:16 -0000 --Apple-Mail-C837301A-A457-42A9-B13A-2665F191B174 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I agree, thanks. FWIW I=E2=80=99ve never been a fan of the =E2=80=98reject=E2=80=99 message, o= r its implementation. https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/wiki/Comments:BIP-0061 e > On Oct 18, 2019, at 18:46, David A. Harding wrote: >=20 > =EF=BB=BFOn Thu, Oct 17, 2019 at 01:16:47PM -0700, Eric Voskuil via bitcoi= n-dev wrote: >> As this is a P2P protocol change it should be exposed as a version >> increment (and a BIP) [...] >>=20 >> BIP61 is explicit: >>=20 >> =E2=80=9CAll implementations of the P2P protocol version 70,002 and later= >> should support the reject message.=E2=80=9C >=20 > I don't think a new BIP or a version number increment is necessary. >=20 > 1. "Should support" isn't the same as "must support". See > https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2119 ; by that reading, > implementations with protocol versions above 70,002 are not required > to support the reject message. >=20 > 2. If you don't implement a BIP, as Bitcoin Core explicitly doesn't any > more for BIP61[1], you're not bound by its conditions. >=20 > -Dave >=20 > [1] https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/doc/bips.md "BIP61 > [...] Support was removed in v0.20.0" --Apple-Mail-C837301A-A457-42A9-B13A-2665F191B174 Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I agree, thanks.

FWIW I=E2=80=99ve never been a fan o= f the =E2=80=98reject=E2=80=99 message, or its implementation.


e

On Oct 18, 2019, at 18:46, David A. Hard= ing <dave@dtrt.org> wrote:

=EF=BB=BFOn Thu, Oct 17, 2019 at 01:16:47PM -0= 700, Eric Voskuil via bitcoin-dev wrote:
As this is a P2P protocol change it should be exposed as a version
increment (and a BIP) [= ...]

BIP61 is explicit:

=E2=80=9CAll implementations of the P2P protocol version 7= 0,002 and later
shoul= d support the reject message.=E2=80=9C
<= br>I don't think a new BIP or a version number increment is necessary.=

1. "Should support" isn't the same as "mus= t support".  See
  https://tools.ietf.org/ht= ml/rfc2119 ; by that reading,
  implementations w= ith protocol versions above 70,002 are not required
 &= nbsp;to support the reject message.

2. If y= ou don't implement a BIP, as Bitcoin Core explicitly doesn't any
<= span>   more for BIP61[1], you're not bound by its conditions.

-Dave

[1] htt= ps://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/doc/bips.md  "BIP61<= br>[...] Support was removed in v0.20.0"
= = --Apple-Mail-C837301A-A457-42A9-B13A-2665F191B174--