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
|
Return-Path: <lf-lists@mattcorallo.com>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8EAD2978
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Mon, 13 Feb 2017 11:11:24 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail.bluematt.me (mail.bluematt.me [192.241.179.72])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F2B01CD
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Mon, 13 Feb 2017 11:11:23 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from [26.83.158.48] (unknown [172.56.6.130])
by mail.bluematt.me (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 11F5D135916;
Mon, 13 Feb 2017 11:11:19 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2017 11:11:11 +0000
In-Reply-To: <9ca02a65-23df-5eb4-f9bd-7e05b54ec4ea@voskuil.org>
References: <ba422d5e-8e96-3475-2a29-80d89fd67322@voskuil.org>
<CAPg+sBhDjVuN6=tdvUcSY5OCdJD7s3Jp90K1qx0iRX+2WppUQQ@mail.gmail.com>
<dde5349d-c430-ad57-30c7-77954ff1a94d@voskuil.org>
<424C9E40-0B90-46A6-9C5E-30AE3E84E119@mattcorallo.com>
<9ca02a65-23df-5eb4-f9bd-7e05b54ec4ea@voskuil.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
To: Eric Voskuil <eric@voskuil.org>,
Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>,
Pieter Wuille <pieter.wuille@gmail.com>
From: Matt Corallo <lf-lists@mattcorallo.com>
Message-ID: <9ECDD902-1D2C-4500-8FC2-4DADF46E4318@mattcorallo.com>
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham
version=3.3.1
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
smtp1.linux-foundation.org
Cc: libbitcoin@lists.dyne.org
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 11:11:24 -0000
I believe many, if not all, of those messages are sent irrespective of vers=
ion number=2E
In any case, I fail to see how adding any additional messages which are ig=
nored by old peers amounts to a lack of backward compatibility=2E
On February 13, 2017 11:54:23 AM GMT+01:00, Eric Voskuil <eric@voskuil=2Eo=
rg> wrote:
>On 02/13/2017 02:16 AM, Matt Corallo wrote:
>> For the reasons Pieter listed, an explicit part of our version
>handshake and protocol negotiation is the exchange of otherwise-ignored
>messages to set up optional features=2E
>
>Only if the peer is at the protocol level that allows the message:
>
>compact blocks:
>
>https://github=2Ecom/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/src/protocol=2Eh#L217-L2=
42
>
>fee filter:
>
>https://github=2Ecom/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/src/protocol=2Eh#L211-L2=
16
>
>send headers:
>
>https://github=2Ecom/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/src/protocol=2Eh#L204-L2=
10
>
>filters:
>
>https://github=2Ecom/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/src/protocol=2Eh#L170-L1=
96
>
>> Peers that do not support this ignore such messages, just as if they
>had indicated they wouldn't support it, see, eg BIP 152's handshake=2E
>Not
>sure why you consider this backwards incompatible, as I would say it's
>pretty clearly allowing old nodes to communicate just fine=2E
>
>No, it is not the same as BIP152=2E Control messages apart from BIP151
>are
>not sent until *after* the version is negotiated=2E
>
>I assume that BIP151 is different in this manner because it has a
>desire
>to negotiate encryption before any other communications, including
>version=2E
>
>e
|
