path: root/c1/784d56386d8622ee4e50d391866d2a37144e43

Received: from sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.194]
	helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
	by sfs-ml-2.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
	(envelope-from <mh.in.england@gmail.com>) id 1UpcRo-00066r-8N
	for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
	Thu, 20 Jun 2013 10:50:36 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
	designates 209.85.219.49 as permitted sender)
	client-ip=209.85.219.49; envelope-from=mh.in.england@gmail.com;
	helo=mail-oa0-f49.google.com; 
Received: from mail-oa0-f49.google.com ([209.85.219.49])
	by sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
	(Exim 4.76) id 1UpcRm-0003sv-AU
	for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
	Thu, 20 Jun 2013 10:50:36 +0000
Received: by mail-oa0-f49.google.com with SMTP id n9so7660724oag.22
	for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
	Thu, 20 Jun 2013 03:50:29 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.60.47.130 with SMTP id d2mr4288453oen.67.1371725428886; Thu,
	20 Jun 2013 03:50:28 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: mh.in.england@gmail.com
Received: by 10.76.23.36 with HTTP; Thu, 20 Jun 2013 03:50:28 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <1371724625.50978.YahooMailNeo@web162706.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
References: <4DE0E45E-BB48-4DFF-9C86-ACBE312B3049@bitsofproof.com>
	<CANEZrP1MVKSNU92UrQ36sPCN0LNLKrVRXnfVwEZKhgoBFXatBA@mail.gmail.com>
	<20130620090649.GA17765@vps7135.xlshosting.net>
	<CANEZrP2cLR9sYZ59O-S6HNi9bKPtaY5yOkvVx+O8XAC792acZg@mail.gmail.com>
	<1371724625.50978.YahooMailNeo@web162706.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2013 12:50:28 +0200
X-Google-Sender-Auth: Lp5UE29Y7rtkiYtSimaQjvk9dNY
Message-ID: <CANEZrP2aOUEqG_+AHsVp52d-815k04f6fXvnnq1qQAVN+jNRZw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net>
To: Turkey Breast <turkeybreast@yahoo.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c30992eb171e04df93b649
X-Spam-Score: -0.5 (/)
X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net.
	See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details.
	-1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for
	sender-domain
	0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider
	(mh.in.england[at]gmail.com)
	-0.0 SPF_PASS               SPF: sender matches SPF record
	1.0 HTML_MESSAGE           BODY: HTML included in message
	0.1 DKIM_SIGNED            Message has a DKIM or DK signature,
	not necessarily valid
	-0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature
X-Headers-End: 1UpcRm-0003sv-AU
Cc: "bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net"
	<bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Missing fRelayTxes in version
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, 20 Jun 2013 10:50:36 -0000

--001a11c30992eb171e04df93b649
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

Sure, the issue isn't running out of integers, it's that you have to handle
the case of truncated messages whether you like it or not so it doesn't add
any simplicity. Even if Bitcoin-Qt starts only sending the new field with a
new version number, there are tens of thousands of bitcoinj based wallets
out there now that send the current version number and the fRelayTx field
as well, so you cannot assume anything about whether the field will exist
or not based on the version number regardless of what is changed on the C++
side. Assuming you care about your code being able to serve Bloom-filtering
clients of course.

With regards to relying on quirks, etc, this is the old "is the protocol
defined by Satoshi's code" debate again ... as I said, version messages
have always had a variable number of fields. You didn't notice before
because it was a long time since any fields were added. Perhaps it's indeed
not ideal, perhaps if Bitcoin was designed in 2013 it'd be using protobufs
or some other pre-packaged serialization system. But it is what it is.



On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 12:37 PM, Turkey Breast <turkeybreast@yahoo.com>wrote:

> I don't get why this is such a contentious change?
>
> Before I was able to use asserts to check the expected length of length of
> messages per protocol version, I could pass in dumb iterators that just
> parse the byte stream and I could serialize and deserialize a message to
> check the parser is correct (in debug mode).
>
> This 'simple' change causes all that behaviour to be lost. You can no
> longer just use iterators but must know the remaining length (or if you use
> std::distance, you can only use specific std containers - not just anything
> with an iterator and an operator++). You cannot check the deserialization
> process by serializing the deserialized message and comparing it to the
> original data (because the bool is always present in the serializer).
>
> It's a bit stupid you call it buggy code when this behaviour has never
> been present in Bitcoin. The BIP doesn't introduce any unwanted
> side-effects and is a trivial reasonable change.
>
> If you want optional fields then the proper way to do it, is to either set
> a flag in the Services field of the "version" message to indicate different
> formats for messages (i.e use this template structure for a message, not
> that one), introduce a new message (if the changes are big), to
> approve/improve Stefan's BIP 32 for custom services or to have a value in
> the byte stream indicating which fields are present (maybe a bitfield or
> so).
>
> Using a quirk of an implementation is just bad form and sloppy coding.
> Optional fields should have their own mechanism that allows them to remain
> as optional fields between protocol version upgrades.
>
> The bitcoind software can probably be improved too, by checking that the
> length of the version message is consistent for the protocol version given
> by the connected node. Right now it makes no assumptions based on that
> which is a mistake (new clients can broadcast older version messages that
> don't have all the fields required). Probably the software should penalise
> hosts which do that.
>
> What's the big deal to update the protocol version number from 70001 to
> 70002? It's not like we'll run out of integers. The field has now gone from
> optional to required now anyway - that's a behaviour change. It'd be good
> to enforce that. I see this as a bug.
>
>   ------------------------------
>  *From:* Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net>
> *To:* Pieter Wuille <pieter.wuille@gmail.com>
> *Cc:* Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>; Tamas
> Blummer <tamas@bitsofproof.com>
> *Sent:* Thursday, June 20, 2013 11:17 AM
> *Subject:* Re: [Bitcoin-development] Missing fRelayTxes in version
>
> There's no problem, but there's no benefit either. It also locks us in to
> a potentially problematic guarantee - what if in future we want to have,
> say, two optional new pieces of data in two different messages. We don't
> want to require that if version > X then you have to implement all features
> up to and including that point.
>
> Essentially the number of fields in a message is like a little version
> number, just for that message. It adds flexibility to keep it that way, and
> there's no downside, seeing as that bridge was already crossed and people
> with parsers that can't handle it need to fix their code anyway.
>
> So I have a slight preference for keeping things the way they are, it
> keeps things flexible for future and costs nothing.
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 11:06 AM, Pieter Wuille <pieter.wuille@gmail.com>wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 09:36:40AM +0200, Mike Hearn wrote:
> > Sure but why not do that when there's an actual new field to add? Does
> > anyone have a proposal for a feature that needs a new version field at
> the
> > moment? There's no point changing the protocol now unless there's
> actually
> > a new field to add.
> >
> > Anyway I still don't see why anyone cares about this issue. The Bitcoin
> > protocol does not and never has required that all messages have a fixed
> > number of fields per version. Any parser written on the assumption it did
> > was just buggy. Look at how tx messages are relayed for the most obvious
> > example of that pattern in action - it's actually the raw byte stream
> > that's stored and relayed to ensure that fields added in new versions
> > aren't dropped during round-tripping. Old versions are supposed to
> preserve
> > fields from the future.
>
> Actually, that is not the same issue. What is being argued for here is that
> the version in the version message itself should indicate which fields are
> present, so a parser doesn't need to look at the length of the message.
> That
> seems like a minor but very reasonable request to me, and it's trivial to
> do.
> That doesn't mean that you may receive versions higher than what you know
> of,
> and thus messages with fields you don't know about. That doesn't matter,
> you
> can just ignore them.
>
> I see no problem with raising the protocol version number to indicate
> "all fields up to fRelayTxes are required, if the announced nVersion is
> above N".
> In fact, I believe (though haven't checked) all previous additions to the
> version
> message were accompanied with a protocol version (then: client version)
> increase
> as well.
>
> --
> Pieter
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> This SF.net email is sponsored by Windows:
>
> Build for Windows Store.
>
> http://p.sf.net/sfu/windows-dev2dev
> _______________________________________________
> Bitcoin-development mailing list
> Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> This SF.net email is sponsored by Windows:
>
> Build for Windows Store.
>
> http://p.sf.net/sfu/windows-dev2dev
> _______________________________________________
> Bitcoin-development mailing list
> Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
>
>

--001a11c30992eb171e04df93b649
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr">Sure, the issue isn&#39;t running out of integers, it&#39;=
s that you have to handle the case of truncated messages whether you like i=
t or not so it doesn&#39;t add any simplicity. Even if Bitcoin-Qt starts on=
ly sending the new field with a new version number, there are tens of thous=
ands of bitcoinj based wallets out there now that send the current version =
number and the fRelayTx field as well, so you cannot assume anything about =
whether the field will exist or not based on the version number regardless =
of what is changed on the C++ side. Assuming you care about your code being=
 able to serve Bloom-filtering clients of course.<div>
<br></div><div>With regards to relying on quirks, etc, this is the old &quo=
t;is the protocol defined by Satoshi&#39;s code&quot; debate again ... as I=
 said, version messages have always had a variable number of fields. You di=
dn&#39;t notice before because it was a long time since any fields were add=
ed. Perhaps it&#39;s indeed not ideal, perhaps if Bitcoin was designed in 2=
013 it&#39;d be using protobufs or some other pre-packaged serialization sy=
stem. But it is what it is.</div>
<div><br></div></div><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><br><div class=3D"gmail=
_quote">On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 12:37 PM, Turkey Breast <span dir=3D"ltr">&=
lt;<a href=3D"mailto:turkeybreast@yahoo.com" target=3D"_blank">turkeybreast=
@yahoo.com</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1p=
x #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div><div style=3D"font-size:12pt;font-famil=
y:times new roman,new york,times,serif"><div><span>I don&#39;t get why this=
 is such a contentious change?</span></div>
<div style=3D"font-style:normal;font-size:16px;background-color:transparent=
;font-family:times new roman,new york,times,serif"><br><span></span></div><=
div style=3D"font-style:normal;font-size:16px;background-color:transparent;=
font-family:times new roman,new york,times,serif">
<span>Before I was able to use asserts to check the expected length of leng=
th of messages per protocol version, I could pass in dumb iterators that ju=
st parse the byte stream and I could serialize and deserialize a message to=
 check the parser is correct (in debug mode).</span></div>
<div style=3D"font-style:normal;font-size:16px;background-color:transparent=
;font-family:times new roman,new york,times,serif"><br><span></span></div><=
div style=3D"font-style:normal;font-size:16px;background-color:transparent;=
font-family:times new roman,new york,times,serif">
<span>This &#39;simple&#39; change causes all that behaviour to be lost. Yo=
u can no longer just use iterators but must know the remaining length (or i=
f you use std::distance, you can only use specific std containers - not jus=
t anything with an iterator and an operator++). You cannot check the deseri=
alization process by serializing the deserialized message and comparing it =
to the original data (because the bool is always present in the serializer)=
.</span></div>
<div style=3D"font-style:normal;font-size:16px;background-color:transparent=
;font-family:times new roman,new york,times,serif"><br><span></span></div><=
div style=3D"font-style:normal;font-size:16px;background-color:transparent;=
font-family:times new roman,new york,times,serif">
<span>It&#39;s a bit stupid you call it buggy code when this behaviour has =
never been present in Bitcoin. The BIP doesn&#39;t introduce any unwanted s=
ide-effects and is a trivial reasonable change.</span></div><div style=3D"f=
ont-style:normal;font-size:16px;background-color:transparent;font-family:ti=
mes new roman,new york,times,serif">
<br><span></span></div><div style=3D"font-style:normal;font-size:16px;backg=
round-color:transparent;font-family:times new roman,new york,times,serif"><=
span>If you want optional fields then the proper way to do it, is to either=
 set a flag in the Services field of the &quot;version&quot; message to ind=
icate different formats for messages (i.e use this template structure for a=
 message, not that one), introduce a new message (if the changes are big), =
to approve/improve Stefan&#39;s BIP 32 for custom services or to have a val=
ue in the byte stream indicating which fields are present (maybe
 a bitfield or so).</span></div><div style=3D"font-style:normal;font-size:1=
6px;background-color:transparent;font-family:times new roman,new york,times=
,serif"><br><span></span></div><div style=3D"font-style:normal;font-size:16=
px;background-color:transparent;font-family:times new roman,new york,times,=
serif">
<span>Using a quirk of an implementation is just bad form and sloppy coding=
. Optional fields should have their own mechanism that allows them to remai=
n as optional fields between protocol version upgrades.<br></span></div>
<div style=3D"font-style:normal;font-size:16px;background-color:transparent=
;font-family:times new roman,new york,times,serif"><br><span></span></div><=
div style=3D"font-style:normal;font-size:16px;background-color:transparent;=
font-family:times new roman,new york,times,serif">
<span>The bitcoind software can probably be improved
 too, by checking that the length of the version message is consistent for =
the protocol version given by the connected node. Right now it makes no ass=
umptions based on that which is a mistake (new clients can broadcast older =
version messages that don&#39;t have all the fields required). Probably the=
 software should penalise hosts which do that.</span></div>
<div style=3D"font-style:normal;font-size:16px;background-color:transparent=
;font-family:times new roman,new york,times,serif"><br><span></span></div><=
div style=3D"font-style:normal;font-size:16px;background-color:transparent;=
font-family:times new roman,new york,times,serif">
<span>What&#39;s the big deal to update the protocol version number from 70=
001 to 70002? It&#39;s not like we&#39;ll run out of integers. The field ha=
s now gone from optional to required now anyway - that&#39;s a behaviour ch=
ange. It&#39;d be good to enforce that. I see this as a
 bug.<br></span></div><div><br></div>  <div style=3D"font-family:times new =
roman,new york,times,serif;font-size:12pt"> <div style=3D"font-family:times=
 new roman,new york,times,serif;font-size:12pt"> <div dir=3D"ltr"> <hr size=
=3D"1">
  <font face=3D"Arial"> <b><span style=3D"font-weight:bold">From:</span></b=
> Mike Hearn &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:mike@plan99.net" target=3D"_blank">mike@=
plan99.net</a>&gt;<br> <b><span style=3D"font-weight:bold">To:</span></b> P=
ieter Wuille &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:pieter.wuille@gmail.com" target=3D"_blan=
k">pieter.wuille@gmail.com</a>&gt; <br>
<b><span style=3D"font-weight:bold">Cc:</span></b> Bitcoin Dev &lt;<a href=
=3D"mailto:bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net" target=3D"_blank">bit=
coin-development@lists.sourceforge.net</a>&gt;; Tamas Blummer &lt;<a href=
=3D"mailto:tamas@bitsofproof.com" target=3D"_blank">tamas@bitsofproof.com</=
a>&gt; <br>
 <b><span style=3D"font-weight:bold">Sent:</span></b> Thursday, June 20, 20=
13 11:17 AM<br> <b><span style=3D"font-weight:bold">Subject:</span></b> Re:=
 [Bitcoin-development] Missing fRelayTxes in version<br> </font> </div> <di=
v>
<div><div class=3D"h5"><br>
<div><div dir=3D"ltr">There&#39;s no problem, but there&#39;s no benefit ei=
ther. It also locks us in to a potentially problematic guarantee - what if =
in future we want to have, say, two optional new pieces of data in two diff=
erent messages. We don&#39;t want to require that if version &gt; X then yo=
u have to implement all features up to and including that point.<div>

<br></div><div>Essentially the number of fields in a message is like a litt=
le version number, just for that message. It adds flexibility to keep it th=
at way, and there&#39;s no downside, seeing as that bridge was already cros=
sed and people with parsers that can&#39;t handle it need to fix their code=
 anyway.</div>

<div><br></div><div>So I have a slight preference for keeping things the wa=
y they are, it keeps things flexible for future and costs nothing.</div><di=
v><br></div></div><div><br><br><div>
On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 11:06 AM, Pieter Wuille <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a re=
l=3D"nofollow" href=3D"mailto:pieter.wuille@gmail.com" target=3D"_blank">pi=
eter.wuille@gmail.com</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br><blockquote style=3D"margin:=
0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">

<div>On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 09:36:40AM +0200, Mike Hearn wrote:<br>
&gt; Sure but why not do that when there&#39;s an actual new field to add? =
Does<br>
&gt; anyone have a proposal for a feature that needs a new version field at=
 the<br>
&gt; moment? There&#39;s no point changing the protocol now unless there&#3=
9;s actually<br>
&gt; a new field to add.<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; Anyway I still don&#39;t see why anyone cares about this issue. The Bi=
tcoin<br>
&gt; protocol does not and never has required that all messages have a fixe=
d<br>
&gt; number of fields per version. Any parser written on the assumption it =
did<br>
&gt; was just buggy. Look at how tx messages are relayed for the most obvio=
us<br>
&gt; example of that pattern in action - it&#39;s actually the raw byte str=
eam<br>
&gt; that&#39;s stored and relayed to ensure that fields added in new versi=
ons<br>
&gt; aren&#39;t dropped during round-tripping. Old versions are supposed to=
 preserve<br>
&gt; fields from the future.<br>
<br>
</div>Actually, that is not the same issue. What is being argued for here i=
s that<br>
the version in the version message itself should indicate which fields are<=
br>
present, so a parser doesn&#39;t need to look at the length of the message.=
 That<br>
seems like a minor but very reasonable request to me, and it&#39;s trivial =
to do.<br>
That doesn&#39;t mean that you may receive versions higher than what you kn=
ow of,<br>
and thus messages with fields you don&#39;t know about. That doesn&#39;t ma=
tter, you<br>
can just ignore them.<br>
<br>
I see no problem with raising the protocol version number to indicate<br>
&quot;all fields up to fRelayTxes are required, if the announced nVersion i=
s above N&quot;.<br>
In fact, I believe (though haven&#39;t checked) all previous additions to t=
he version<br>
message were accompanied with a protocol version (then: client version) inc=
rease<br>
as well.<br>
<span><font color=3D"#888888"><br>
--<br>
Pieter<br>
<br>
</font></span></blockquote></div><br></div>
</div><br></div></div><div class=3D"im">-----------------------------------=
-------------------------------------------<br>This SF.net email is sponsor=
ed by Windows:<br><br>Build for Windows Store.<br><br><a href=3D"http://p.s=
f.net/sfu/windows-dev2dev" target=3D"_blank">http://p.sf.net/sfu/windows-de=
v2dev</a><br>
_______________________________________________<br>Bitcoin-development mail=
ing list<br><a href=3D"mailto:Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net" ta=
rget=3D"_blank">Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net</a><br><a href=3D=
"https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development" target=
=3D"_blank">https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-developmen=
t</a><br>
<br><br></div></div> </div> </div>  </div></div><br>-----------------------=
-------------------------------------------------------<br>
This SF.net email is sponsored by Windows:<br>
<br>
Build for Windows Store.<br>
<br>
<a href=3D"http://p.sf.net/sfu/windows-dev2dev" target=3D"_blank">http://p.=
sf.net/sfu/windows-dev2dev</a><br>_________________________________________=
______<br>
Bitcoin-development mailing list<br>
<a href=3D"mailto:Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net">Bitcoin-develo=
pment@lists.sourceforge.net</a><br>
<a href=3D"https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development=
" target=3D"_blank">https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-de=
velopment</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div>

--001a11c30992eb171e04df93b649--