Date: Fri, 7 Oct 2022 16:31:39 +1000
From: Anthony Towns <aj@erisian.com.au>
To: eric@voskuil.org,
 Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Message-ID: <Yz/Hy39ablXUdmH+@erisian.com.au>
References: <03ca01d8d8fb$1558ed50$400ac7f0$@voskuil.org>
 <040f01d8d93c$a58c2540$f0a46fc0$@voskuil.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <040f01d8d93c$a58c2540$f0a46fc0$@voskuil.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Packaged Transaction Relay
Precedence: list

On Wed, Oct 05, 2022 at 09:32:29PM -0700, Eric Voskuil via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> Protocol cannot be defined on an ad-hoc basis as a "courtesy"

BIPs are a courtesy in the first place. There's no central authority to
enforce some particular way of doing things.

> - and it's not exactly a courtesy to keep yourself from getting dropped by peers. It is not clear to me why such a comment would be accepted instead of specifying this properly. 

If you think that the version restriction should be part of the BIP,
why not do a pull request? The BIP is still marked as "Draft".

> I doubt that anyone who's worked with it is terribly fond of Bitcoin's P2P protocol versioning. I've spent some time on a proposal to update it, though it hasn't been a priority. If anyone is interested in collaborating on it please contact me directly.

Bottlenecking a proposal on someone who doesn't see it as a priority
doesn't seem smart?

Here's what I think makes sense:

https://github.com/ajtowns/bips/blob/202210-p2pfeatures/bip-p2pfeatures.mediawiki

Cheers,
aj