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
|
Received: from sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.191]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-3.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <mh.in.england@gmail.com>) id 1WuJUr-0004rJ-Kj
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Tue, 10 Jun 2014 10:41:41 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
designates 209.85.219.46 as permitted sender)
client-ip=209.85.219.46; envelope-from=mh.in.england@gmail.com;
helo=mail-oa0-f46.google.com;
Received: from mail-oa0-f46.google.com ([209.85.219.46])
by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1WuJUq-0001wk-Nk
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Tue, 10 Jun 2014 10:41:41 +0000
Received: by mail-oa0-f46.google.com with SMTP id g18so7278079oah.5
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Tue, 10 Jun 2014 03:41:35 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.182.144.161 with SMTP id sn1mr1487533obb.82.1402396895284;
Tue, 10 Jun 2014 03:41:35 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: mh.in.england@gmail.com
Received: by 10.76.71.162 with HTTP; Tue, 10 Jun 2014 03:41:35 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <20140608214529.GB4191@savin>
References: <20140606084852.GA30247@netbook.cypherspace.org>
<20140606090441.GA19256@savin>
<20140606104543.GA31085@netbook.cypherspace.org>
<20140606164639.GB14891@savin>
<CAAS2fgTKiPMPOazNTPL8+3Ov1xOj=H+yK3u+sd_pe=nyDSPgTw@mail.gmail.com>
<20140606170524.GA29195@savin>
<CAAS2fgT3CfJ9Lf2H2BYVfUeJoF0RBi+EMmAghj5G2vJPtahmjg@mail.gmail.com>
<20140606174545.GB29195@savin>
<CANEZrP0BEod6b5joJBMPDv_NAxAh9Kio3aniZ3sH6f9Q4nozpQ@mail.gmail.com>
<53936B87.3060804@gmail.com> <20140608214529.GB4191@savin>
Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2014 18:41:35 +0800
X-Google-Sender-Auth: wAh_PjVXl3mGAJuBqPmHqY9vJdg
Message-ID: <CANEZrP2BF75K6dY690LkDEaBCoerhEOau071z+h2Qjh1i2RvWA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net>
To: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e0158ac78c715b204fb78f8c5
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: 1WuJUq-0001wk-Nk
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Bloom bait
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: Tue, 10 Jun 2014 10:41:41 -0000
--089e0158ac78c715b204fb78f8c5
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
> A NODE_BLOOM service bit is a very reasonable
> and simple way to do exactly that, and is defacto what implementations
> that don't support bloom filters do anyway.
>
BTW, I find it curious that any nodes have code to disconnect peers that
send Bloom filters. It shouldn't be necessary. Bitcoinj is the only large
scale user of filtering and it will disconnect itself if a peer advertises
support for a version lower than 70000. If a node advertises support for
this version or higher then it is supposed to implement BIP37.
It sounds like some node authors decided to advertise support for a
protocol version they didn't bother implementing, which would be a bug.
--089e0158ac78c715b204fb78f8c5
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<div dir=3D"ltr"><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><blo=
ckquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left=
-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;paddi=
ng-left:1ex">
=C2=A0A NODE_BLOOM service bit is a very reasonable<br>
and simple way to do exactly that, and is defacto what implementations<br>
that don't support bloom filters do anyway.<br></blockquote><div><br></=
div><div>BTW, I find it curious that any nodes have code to disconnect peer=
s that send Bloom filters. It shouldn't be necessary. Bitcoinj is the o=
nly large scale user of filtering and it will disconnect itself if a peer a=
dvertises support for a version lower than 70000. If a node advertises supp=
ort for this version or higher then it is supposed to implement BIP37.</div=
>
<div><br></div><div>It sounds like some node authors decided to advertise s=
upport for a protocol version they didn't bother implementing, which wo=
uld be a bug.</div></div></div></div>
--089e0158ac78c715b204fb78f8c5--
|
