Received: from sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.191] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-1.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from <pw@vps7135.xlshosting.net>) id 1SIMTB-0001fH-P4 for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Thu, 12 Apr 2012 16:02:01 +0000 X-ACL-Warn: Received: from vps7135.xlshosting.net ([178.18.90.41]) by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) id 1SIMTA-0007Ns-EK for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Thu, 12 Apr 2012 16:02:01 +0000 Received: by vps7135.xlshosting.net (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 784B461587; Thu, 12 Apr 2012 18:01:54 +0200 (CEST) Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2012 18:01:54 +0200 From: Pieter Wuille <pieter.wuille@gmail.com> To: Gavin Andresen <gavinandresen@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20120412160151.GA1100@vps7135.xlshosting.net> References: <CA+XhJbpNYUyPm2Ymcpg3grbfGnfERCsUJNJuByEJbJLsMMmMbQ@mail.gmail.com> <CABsx9T029cY-OJfZ9n-rSZc7i36e+CkOZPZixdi8EFL7oN4jhQ@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <CABsx9T029cY-OJfZ9n-rSZc7i36e+CkOZPZixdi8EFL7oN4jhQ@mail.gmail.com> X-PGP-Key: http://sipa.ulyssis.org/pubkey.asc User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Score: 1.2 (+) X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net. See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details. 0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider (pieter.wuille[at]gmail.com) 0.0 DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED No valid author signature, adsp_override is CUSTOM_MED -0.0 T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay domain 1.2 NML_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED ADSP custom_med hit, and not from a mailing list X-Headers-End: 1SIMTA-0007Ns-EK Cc: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Adding request/reply id in messages X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: <bitcoin-development.lists.sourceforge.net> List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>, <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=unsubscribe> List-Archive: <http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_name=bitcoin-development> List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net> List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>, <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=subscribe> X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2012 16:02:01 -0000 On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 11:41:05AM -0400, Gavin Andresen wrote: > On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 2:39 PM, Christian Bodt <sirk390@gmail.com> wro= te: > > I would like to discuss the following bitcoin protocol improvement pr= oposal: > > > > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Adding request/reply id in all messages (in the me= ssage header, > > based on what was done for the "checksum" field) >=20 > That seems like a perfectly reasonable protocol improvement to me. > Anybody else have an opinion? If there is a reasonable use for it, I have no objections. However: the bitcoin P2P protocol is not fully request-reply based, and t= rying to use it that may be be less intuitive than how it looks. For example, doing a = second identical "getblocks" request will not result in more "inv" replies, as t= he client prevents retransmits. This is not a large problem, but maybe such an exte= nsion should also include an extra "denied" message, which is sent if the clien= t is unwilling to answer (and may also be used to report transactions that are= not accepted into the memory pool, for example). --=20 Pieter