summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/1a/645c4052aad927b4dbdf31ef706e0e62cdee94
blob: b3a1ac359a0385f337818a455c04d4f40a502a2a (plain)
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
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
Return-Path: <bitcoin-dev@wuille.net>
Received: from smtp1.osuosl.org (smtp1.osuosl.org [140.211.166.138])
 by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D5EECC002D
 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
 Thu,  5 Jan 2023 22:06:54 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 by smtp1.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3A5FB82251
 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
 Thu,  5 Jan 2023 22:06:54 +0000 (UTC)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp1.osuosl.org 3A5FB82251
Authentication-Results: smtp1.osuosl.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key,
 unprotected) header.d=wuille.net header.i=@wuille.net header.a=rsa-sha256
 header.s=protonmail3 header.b=lSTMtWFN
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.103
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.103 tagged_above=-999 required=5
 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1,
 DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001,
 RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001]
 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from smtp1.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1])
 by localhost (smtp1.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
 with ESMTP id 8sRTmEqChSaD
 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
 Thu,  5 Jan 2023 22:06:49 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp1.osuosl.org 892DD8224E
Received: from mail-4323.proton.ch (mail-4323.proton.ch [185.70.43.23])
 by smtp1.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 892DD8224E
 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
 Thu,  5 Jan 2023 22:06:48 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Thu, 05 Jan 2023 22:06:29 +0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=wuille.net;
 s=protonmail3; t=1672956405; x=1673215605;
 bh=MV8DbWx5aJ3zg4Ytg/oN9Y6gqwrDZYmn9ZGWmA+Dpg4=;
 h=Date:To:From:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:In-Reply-To:References:
 Feedback-ID:From:To:Cc:Date:Subject:Reply-To:Feedback-ID:
 Message-ID:BIMI-Selector;
 b=lSTMtWFNCUxpwX4LUdx3aDcjq7wbp8TDPqFla27yXdfp37N6wCDBMQ/TZqKooOCsl
 HMRHFnPmlVQe8vES4UCgd/zu6ZlU7iWvWuFX0l13qfDHf1uXLuQbqjRxj4wyLrA1s0
 ivI/1VkrVPAVWzNAmsSo4RtD8zlAfmBmOwMicMRaT4gMRrYG+3/m6hlH/g90FwL9KR
 Uq+K5L/aWvXuRVVk3QB+Vcs75z6yGXNAaVfAhdCfqHyu3bP8q5IjvsufqTLAPoVBMi
 SCA/iYCVZUuC01dm0xacIYLYzlvxcaPvwm22mWB6uGSX8Jg2gse/MHMtXzvieEinVh
 tY+YeVatPAQPQ==
To: Anthony Towns <aj@erisian.com.au>
From: Pieter Wuille <bitcoin-dev@wuille.net>
Message-ID: <gSxFQedPc72pTioi9vuxvLKpaRBsnKFL4gkPKPn2G-EJgz_2Y1pYQ7cHD5SnunyCaLln7UQEHIxnopqP74LlnK__Mf9BURbJW8B5MYTZvCU=@wuille.net>
In-Reply-To: <Y3dBUXPhTskCx+Fu@erisian.com.au>
References: <56677685-619a-691f-d5bc-54b69fdb6ed2@bip324.com>
 <zxv58iXZ73hf9ge8S0QLTanW-uLzaWjNtMHuKONP9hrqS5RhwitxzfVaMH8hbi3yImgNrKme3lCuDcHYKkpxEQHyGZZHJ8xtReOcnAx3o4g=@wuille.net>
 <Y2nK99fHUKxbPHmw@erisian.com.au>
 <wDqcIVw-YGTsjdf5M2GO9NNRl_UQuBeka2CUQUyQ329u6u-o7RabW_7S4FD3EDfk02kUczb3bXf8LtHhKLtx773UhQ7djKOl-JPOIrXqBSc=@wuille.net>
 <JXfTBjsA71dHE3h9wkxnWXANrwTbMADO4s2w34gEvMbiduKu4PEt5t-KA3EAIz-Xs4urjBHZ15NDFZST2a7e0x_NqyJymUnEORuTp3SNfMs=@wuille.net>
 <Y3dBUXPhTskCx+Fu@erisian.com.au>
Feedback-ID: 19463299:user:proton
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 05 Jan 2023 22:15:06 +0000
Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Refreshed BIP324
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev.lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/options/bitcoin-dev>, 
 <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev>, 
 <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 05 Jan 2023 22:06:54 -0000

------- Original Message -------
On Friday, November 18th, 2022 at 3:24 AM, Anthony Towns <aj@erisian.com.au=
> wrote:

> > * etc
> > So this gives a uniform space which commands can be assigned from, and =
there is no strict need for thinking of the short-binary and long-alphabeti=
c commands as distinct. In v2, some short ones would be treated as aliases =
for old long-alphabetic ones. But new commands could also just be introduce=
d as short ones only (even in v1).
>=20
> Isn't that optimising for the wrong thing? Aren't the goals we want:
>=20
> 1) it should be easy to come up with a message identifier without
> accidently conflicting with someone else's proposal
>=20
> 2) commonly used messages on the wire should have a short encoding
> in order to save bandwidth
>=20
> Depending on how much the p2p protocol ossifies, which messages are
> "commonly used on the wire" might be expected to change; and picking an
> otherwise meaningless value from a set of 102 elements seems likely to
> produce conflicts...

Oh, yes. I meant this as an encoding scheme, not as a (replacement for) the=
 negotiation/coordination mechanism. There could still be an initial assign=
ment for 1-byte encodings, and/or an explicit mechanism to negotiate other =
assignment, and/or nothing at all for now.

I just thought it would be interesting to have a uniform encoding without e=
xplicit distinction between "short commands" and "long commands" at that la=
yer.

But maybe none of this is worth it, as it's perhaps more complexity than th=
e alternative, and the alternative already has a working implementation and=
 written-up specification.

Cheers,

--=20
Pieter