1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
|
Received: from sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.193]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-4.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <pw@vps7135.xlshosting.net>) id 1T2MmZ-0002b9-3p
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Fri, 17 Aug 2012 13:40:11 +0000
X-ACL-Warn:
Received: from vps7135.xlshosting.net ([178.18.90.41])
by sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
id 1T2MmY-0003xS-8L for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Fri, 17 Aug 2012 13:40:11 +0000
Received: by vps7135.xlshosting.net (Postfix, from userid 1000)
id 9AC7D6036C; Fri, 17 Aug 2012 15:40:02 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2012 15:40:01 +0200
From: Pieter Wuille <pieter.wuille@gmail.com>
To: Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@exmulti.com>
Message-ID: <20120817134000.GA30465@vps7135.xlshosting.net>
References: <CA+8xBpcfxdpg-z4OQab3379amznM30Ae-Kurko0BKuySwfBy+Q@mail.gmail.com>
<20120816175637.GA13454@vps7135.xlshosting.net>
<502D482A.2090609@justmoon.de>
<1345150660.5139.YahooMailNeo@web121003.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>
<CA+8xBpd4uHO63QCFtOqLB6SPLYO_9y2fQGbNLFH81ovGukhBmg@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CA+8xBpd4uHO63QCFtOqLB6SPLYO_9y2fQGbNLFH81ovGukhBmg@mail.gmail.com>
X-PGP-Key: http://sipa.ulyssis.org/pubkey.asc
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
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 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: 1T2MmY-0003xS-8L
Cc: Bitcoin Development <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] BIP 35: add mempool message
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: Fri, 17 Aug 2012 13:40:11 -0000
On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 05:05:58PM -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> On MSG_MEMTX: The current version has a much higher Just Works value.
>
> On empty "inv": It is generally better to do something
> unconditionally, than have a response generated only under certain
> conditions.
>
> And Alan is correct to note that unknown messages are ignored
> (intentionally, for expansion). However, unconditionally returning a
> response has little to do with feature probing/discovery. It is
> simply a clear, deterministic indication that processing is complete,
> for each invocation.
I disagree. Returning an empty "inv" is a very strange way of replying
"empty mempool". Bitcoin P2P is not a request-response protocol, and
"inv" messages are sent where there are inventory items to send. The
reaction to a request (for example "getblocks") can be nothing, or one
or more "inv" messages if necessary. Special casing an empty "inv" to
mean empty mempool is trying to hack a request-response system on top
of the asynchronous system.
If there is need for confirming the transmission of the mempool is
complete, the proposal to use a MSG_MEMTX sounds good to me. No client
will ever receive such an inv without requesting the mempool, and
implementing handling MSG_MEMTX is trivial.
--
Pieter
|
