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
120
|
Return-Path: <dev@jonasschnelli.ch>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AAA25258
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Mon, 13 Feb 2017 10:07:28 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from server3 (server3.include7.ch [144.76.194.38])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8F8CBD5
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Mon, 13 Feb 2017 10:07:27 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by server3 (Postfix, from userid 115)
id 5484A2D006FB; Mon, 13 Feb 2017 11:07:26 +0100 (CET)
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
smtp1.linux-foundation.org
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, FSL_HELO_NON_FQDN_1
autolearn=ham version=3.3.1
Received: from Jonass-MacBook-Pro.local (unknown [213.55.211.10])
by server3 (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 5B8FE2D00145
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Mon, 13 Feb 2017 11:07:25 +0100 (CET)
To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
References: <ba422d5e-8e96-3475-2a29-80d89fd67322@voskuil.org>
<CAPg+sBhDjVuN6=tdvUcSY5OCdJD7s3Jp90K1qx0iRX+2WppUQQ@mail.gmail.com>
<dde5349d-c430-ad57-30c7-77954ff1a94d@voskuil.org>
From: Jonas Schnelli <dev@jonasschnelli.ch>
Message-ID: <ff7c24ba-7c70-efaf-a319-b1aebfd8a3bd@jonasschnelli.ch>
Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2017 11:07:12 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.12; rv:45.0)
Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.5.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <dde5349d-c430-ad57-30c7-77954ff1a94d@voskuil.org>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256;
protocol="application/pgp-signature";
boundary="ViPaN93HIHR1HHdhg8BejSJdcshOoO36Q"
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP151 protocol incompatibility
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: Mon, 13 Feb 2017 10:07:28 -0000
This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156)
--ViPaN93HIHR1HHdhg8BejSJdcshOoO36Q
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="WigGl22UoseNw9COWWPrDDRnFeG8K91Hc";
protected-headers="v1"
From: Jonas Schnelli <dev@jonasschnelli.ch>
To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
Message-ID: <ff7c24ba-7c70-efaf-a319-b1aebfd8a3bd@jonasschnelli.ch>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP151 protocol incompatibility
References: <ba422d5e-8e96-3475-2a29-80d89fd67322@voskuil.org>
<CAPg+sBhDjVuN6=tdvUcSY5OCdJD7s3Jp90K1qx0iRX+2WppUQQ@mail.gmail.com>
<dde5349d-c430-ad57-30c7-77954ff1a94d@voskuil.org>
In-Reply-To: <dde5349d-c430-ad57-30c7-77954ff1a94d@voskuil.org>
--WigGl22UoseNw9COWWPrDDRnFeG8K91Hc
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-2022-jp
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> All adopted BIPs to date have followed this
> pattern. This is not the same and it is not helpful to imply that it is
> just following that pattern.
Look at feefilter BIP 133
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0133.mediawiki#backward-compatibility)
or sendheaders BIP130
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0130.mediawiki#backward-compatibility)
Isn't it the same there?
Once BIP151 is implemented, it would make sense to bump the protocol
version, but this needs to be done once this has been
implemented/deployed. Or do I make a mistake somewhere?
>
> As for DOS, waste of bandwidth is not something to be ignored. If a peer
> is flooding a node with addr message the node can manage it because it
> understands the semantics of addr messages. If a node is required to
> allow any message that it cannot understand it has no recourse. It
> cannot determine whether it is under attack or if the behavior is
> correct and for proper continued operation must be ignored.
How do you threat any other not known message types? Any peer can send
you any type of message anytime. Why would your implementation how you
threat unknown messages be different for messages specified in BIP151?
</jonas>
--WigGl22UoseNw9COWWPrDDRnFeG8K91Hc--
--ViPaN93HIHR1HHdhg8BejSJdcshOoO36Q
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc"
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----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=i0O/
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--ViPaN93HIHR1HHdhg8BejSJdcshOoO36Q--
|
