To: Matt Corallo <lf-lists@mattcorallo.com>,
	Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>,
	Pieter Wuille <pieter.wuille@gmail.com>
References: <ba422d5e-8e96-3475-2a29-80d89fd67322@voskuil.org>
	<CAPg+sBhDjVuN6=tdvUcSY5OCdJD7s3Jp90K1qx0iRX+2WppUQQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<dde5349d-c430-ad57-30c7-77954ff1a94d@voskuil.org>
	<424C9E40-0B90-46A6-9C5E-30AE3E84E119@mattcorallo.com>
From: Eric Voskuil <eric@voskuil.org>
Message-ID: <9ca02a65-23df-5eb4-f9bd-7e05b54ec4ea@voskuil.org>
Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2017 02:54:23 -0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101
	Thunderbird/45.5.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <424C9E40-0B90-46A6-9C5E-30AE3E84E119@mattcorallo.com>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1;
	protocol="application/pgp-signature";
	boundary="rLjSAArkAN4xWPuSQ4FlU5RdD4aD4VV56"
Cc: libbitcoin@lists.dyne.org
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP151 protocol incompatibility
Precedence: list

This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156)
--rLjSAArkAN4xWPuSQ4FlU5RdD4aD4VV56
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On 02/13/2017 02:16 AM, Matt Corallo wrote:
> For the reasons Pieter listed, an explicit part of our version
handshake and protocol negotiation is the exchange of otherwise-ignored
messages to set up optional features.

Only if the peer is at the protocol level that allows the message:

compact blocks:

https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/src/protocol.h#L217-L242

fee filter:

https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/src/protocol.h#L211-L216

send headers:

https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/src/protocol.h#L204-L210

filters:

https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/src/protocol.h#L170-L196

> Peers that do not support this ignore such messages, just as if they
had indicated they wouldn't support it, see, eg BIP 152's handshake. Not
sure why you consider this backwards incompatible, as I would say it's
pretty clearly allowing old nodes to communicate just fine.

No, it is not the same as BIP152. Control messages apart from BIP151 are
not sent until *after* the version is negotiated.

I assume that BIP151 is different in this manner because it has a desire
to negotiate encryption before any other communications, including versio=
n.

e


--rLjSAArkAN4xWPuSQ4FlU5RdD4aD4VV56
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux)

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJYoZBfAAoJEDzYwH8LXOFOQgUIAJf2JQ6x2sDvZl2EsfWjp+2W
7pOFOZpQl3RrlOxB43lS0WyPsqjuIZNfx2b3UGJYU051bJJku8FskiTv+WHQ520E
yXPu9Je+dqbdUzchR1w7bql1iH5z8MaBw2lT9siWEmXfQnmTdtPjYrykUlb6s/GB
W1Tj06HWFI8SiEAgn+AVIYr1Wj1DXwNd06DIabAIIZ7tGYBtTlhUN0GbUPEfkqxr
UNDxKeS3/ASMZTHaObq/yC3ZN30/al7fi6OGPhjcmByCtljWOBq84CjHwbSg4DHg
L1YnuRA67mdT+VO2lqUGKyHPGGBXiqFr3C/4C8ui2O93Hp8oRB/lVHYA4dPA54E=
=Ayxv
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--rLjSAArkAN4xWPuSQ4FlU5RdD4aD4VV56--