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
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
|
Return-Path: <will@256k1.dev>
Received: from smtp4.osuosl.org (smtp4.osuosl.org [IPv6:2605:bc80:3010::137])
by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8ED2DC002A
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Tue, 18 Apr 2023 06:47:53 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by smtp4.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6EE82415E5
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Tue, 18 Apr 2023 06:47:53 +0000 (UTC)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp4.osuosl.org 6EE82415E5
Authentication-Results: smtp4.osuosl.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key,
unprotected) header.d=256k1.dev header.i=@256k1.dev header.a=rsa-sha256
header.s=MBO0001 header.b=vvE4xg7V
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.8
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.8 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_LOW=-0.7,
SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from smtp4.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1])
by localhost (smtp4.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
with ESMTP id W1AdfUn9IVYZ
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Tue, 18 Apr 2023 06:47:52 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: delayed 00:09:59 by SQLgrey-1.8.0
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp4.osuosl.org 19A40415E2
Received: from mout-p-201.mailbox.org (mout-p-201.mailbox.org [80.241.56.171])
by smtp4.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 19A40415E2
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Tue, 18 Apr 2023 06:47:51 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from smtp1.mailbox.org (smtp1.mailbox.org
[IPv6:2001:67c:2050:b231:465::1])
(using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)
key-exchange ECDHE (P-384) server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest
SHA256) (No client certificate requested)
by mout-p-201.mailbox.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4Q0vP90WNYz9sRC
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Tue, 18 Apr 2023 08:37:49 +0200 (CEST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=256k1.dev; s=MBO0001;
t=1681799869;
h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id:
to:to:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type;
bh=tRk1fZRq2E4hoAorCey7hvYcEPnh8HkAVeOgl9PPhic=;
b=vvE4xg7V32wXx3hPqOC6JkZ2yOpoKtnCPFqcEQNtE/iQ8NkIfE5F3kTSJFv277GzxkBPk1
jYgydifF5GNNLK4HYKlSbJcAzPYx0UpDzh3HohGV9spynF+8w6xDyd1HxfuOsmXjJ7tfF7
M7WofY/Vjx6IPsuVfpEdCyS6eXbMNjVtfQtqWT0gRQ4cTtOMcIFFv58EAx4es3cIQmbCol
N0D8E+IvpD+bauwx1OUpeuobNbs+d3q2TJdCbctKkZ5tOgkxQpQ727x7PiDS5EF2ONwg/k
Zz5FpZ/v7jzQtKj3MohVGj9L3r5FkAAAjJC8Nx8J4v7aIZmucwyas6qKIUtSXA==
Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2023 06:37:45 +0000
From: Will Clark <will@256k1.dev>
To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
Message-ID: <u2v2u2tpzcuyi7mkwmt3wwco6f54v5ys5nk6fdrx4d5ucy4unx@vpaz4n65lyqu>
Mail-Followup-To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Disposition: inline
X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 4Q0vP90WNYz9sRC
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 18 Apr 2023 10:10:30 +0000
Subject: [bitcoin-dev] Proposal to Remove BIP35 P2P 'mempool' Message
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: Tue, 18 Apr 2023 06:47:53 -0000
I'd like to discuss potential removal of the BIP35 P2P `mempool`
message.
Supporting the BIP35 `mempool` message for arbitrary peers is bad for
privacy while being relatively inefficient for trusted peers. Its
original intention was to be publicly callable, but it is now (in
Bitcoin Core) gated behind stricter Net Permissions which make it
accessible to trusted peers only.
When serving trusted clients one alternative might be to use the
`savemempool` RPC, which can then be loaded directly (in whole) by the
client. This does currently have some shortcomings, namely that the
client will lose the contents of their mempool in the process, so if
they have different policies some transactions may be lost. Currently
there is no way to load and de-duplicate a mempool dumped by this RPC
into an existing mempool, although a PR has been opened to Bitcoin Core
enabling this functionality so it may be available in the
not-too-distant future:
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27460
In my view dumping and loading a dumped mempool to sync two trusted
nodes (or bootstrap one node) makes more sense via RPC as more
transaction data can be included in the sync (e.g. transaction expiry
time), but there is an argument to be made that syncing via P2P message
would be more convenient.
N.B. that two (un-patched) bitcoin nodes cannot currently sync from each
other using the `mempool` P2P message as there is no functionality to
_send_ these messages, only to service them.
Removing this message would also provide an (albeit small) clean-up to
the P2P codebase, bringing with it the usual benefits in terms of
maintainability etc.
I have a draft PR open for the removal of the mempool message here:
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27426
However, before moving forward, I want to ensure that there are no
active use cases or technical opposition to its removal from readers of
this list. To that end, I kindly request your input on the following
questions:
1. Are there any parties who still directly rely on the BIP35 P2P
`mempool` message? If so, please share your use case and any potential
impact that the removal might have on your operations.
2. Do you foresee any issues or negative consequences resulting from the
removal of the `mempool` message? If so, please elaborate on the
potential problems and their severity.
From a quick search of node implementations I can see `btcd`,
`libbitcoin` and `BitcoinJ` all have BIP35 messages specified, but I
have not checked more deeply to see if they are using/servicing/ignoring
them, and it's difficult to gauge upstream usage by other projects
without outreach like this...
I look forward to hearing your thoughts.
--
Cheers,
Will
|
