Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 95D8A7A8 for ; Fri, 24 Mar 2017 00:20:34 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-wr0-f175.google.com (mail-wr0-f175.google.com [209.85.128.175]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EAC2AAB for ; Fri, 24 Mar 2017 00:20:33 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-wr0-f175.google.com with SMTP id y90so40085961wrb.0 for ; Thu, 23 Mar 2017 17:20:33 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=rBkiqOkUV/ebMh65NRhNkXwCZZ15bWK0U2GQbsiotb8=; b=aaSgODKyBa32qCk+2ZnkZo/SXwwRhtH02f3KKtTGwmRNi7mu5g5MbfZU2ISQa+cXsQ 0yqDqNoKLB5054lcSf3T/GdO9pX2D/PM5pDCKlaJMz98Oil88YBuJfrFW5htZUPxZP8e KTNeD92USMBw6xNANPgh6LQsk9O30224Zyxhx9bUuQYIR3WSHVUfofMwn3wNZH76feM0 DsL/RN6idtMLG0FE+aFZKaBEnvR+CkawLc3d8gGYQ6WhNH+HRDzxwCjBY6PIEuWxrJ9s VXKCibNVcZtlYmZxb1spHQDuioODaxaqLe5LeAlTtgpBd22DMcfNRNRVAkDwTkPZRN1h ipaw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to; bh=rBkiqOkUV/ebMh65NRhNkXwCZZ15bWK0U2GQbsiotb8=; b=TvBhlAdnNMrjMa6Q2pVWVh9HUwMZI0OOI6o1J5YhvKfY6wgqY+YOAwjUg8QJYjBRoo ecwykVtfb9TfaxRwyIqiTtmHjm+kK0xegxn2hxkLGXjW4lBEesk9/QaxQbOCV4DKldJ3 boJRgsqpBRzokWmCPDnua14ZcV8o+bbZqKEmrYm8VkRjZ/mpzvVFjtKvL8vVUEaWIpPE 5pRDLXQb/jgLSPYgAugRurh9Ob/eElDF25z/dWjfW5wu1TukbxwYi6cUu3Lcq1C9CZYr /3zPWlPnFpzmjCEoDunXSXaa9cxzNBaMHcBXNvriMXdi2eV4dZz5fnpsIWEBE1kJAaaB qRBw== X-Gm-Message-State: AFeK/H14JCItBHKwEQdK0IQpJitSOJZNiXh/BXsS5X7MpMTscinzCWRXX4GIAjpepUZuU5YetHjXcBI0u/Lpqg== X-Received: by 10.223.133.182 with SMTP id 51mr5129446wrt.39.1490314832601; Thu, 23 Mar 2017 17:20:32 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.80.135.5 with HTTP; Thu, 23 Mar 2017 17:20:32 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: From: Pieter Wuille Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2017 17:20:32 -0700 Message-ID: To: Juan Garavaglia , Bitcoin Protocol Discussion Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.0 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, FREEMAIL_FROM, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Issolated Bitcoin Nodes X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2017 00:20:34 -0000 On Thu, Mar 23, 2017 at 3:37 PM, Juan Garavaglia via bitcoin-dev wrote: > Long story short, when nodes 0.13+ receive blocks from 0.13+ nodes all is > ok, and those blocks propagate to older nodes with no issues. But when a > block tries to be propagated from bitcoind 0.12.+ to newer ones those blocks > are NOT being propagated to the peers with newer versions while these newer > blocks are being propagated to peers with older versions with no issues. > > My conclusion is that we have a backward compatibility issue between 0.13.X+ > and older versions. Hello Juan, this is expected behaviour. Nodes with segwit active only download blocks from other segwit peers, as old peers cannot provide the witness data they need to verify the blocks. -- Pieter