From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.192] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-3.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1RMk4a-0001tl-GU for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Sat, 05 Nov 2011 17:30:28 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com designates 209.85.213.47 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.213.47; envelope-from=jordanmack1981@gmail.com; helo=mail-yw0-f47.google.com; Received: from mail-yw0-f47.google.com ([209.85.213.47]) by sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-MD5:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1RMk4Z-000263-Jz for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Sat, 05 Nov 2011 17:30:28 +0000 Received: by ywf9 with SMTP id 9so4362358ywf.34 for ; Sat, 05 Nov 2011 10:30:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.50.203.70 with SMTP id ko6mr23701844igc.19.1320514222093; Sat, 05 Nov 2011 10:30:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.0.50] (c-67-188-239-72.hsd1.ca.comcast.net. [67.188.239.72]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id mh1sm20168789pbc.11.2011.11.05.10.30.19 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Sat, 05 Nov 2011 10:30:20 -0700 (PDT) Sender: Jordan Mack Message-ID: <4EB5729A.7090205@parhelic.com> Date: Sat, 05 Nov 2011 10:30:02 -0700 From: Jordan Mack User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:7.0.1) Gecko/20110929 Thunderbird/7.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net References: <1320268981.72296.YahooMailNeo@web121003.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <1320507589.87534.YahooMailNeo@web121019.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <201111051229.16790.luke@dashjr.org> <1320511212.70648.YahooMailNeo@web121017.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> In-Reply-To: <1320511212.70648.YahooMailNeo@web121017.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: -1.4 (-) 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 (jordanmack1981[at]gmail.com) -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record 0.1 FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT Envelope-from freemail username ends in digit (jordanmack1981[at]gmail.com) 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: 1RMk4Z-000263-Jz Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Lock protocol version numbers X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 05 Nov 2011 17:30:28 -0000 > If clients break the network protocol/do not comply properly with it, > they should be disconnected and shunned. Hard love. We don't want any > ambiguity in the protocol. > However my feeling about the user-agent string is that it is a vanity > item, but here we'd be enforcing a format that everybody can > understand and read. I agree with Amir completely on both these points. With something as critical as financial transactions, no exceptions can be made. The reported client and version should be ignored completely. If a client does not comply with the protocol, they must be rejected outright. It is not in the best interest, or ability, to attempt to micromanage how developers choose to use the information given. Recommendations and guidelines can be made, but how they choose to implement is ultimately their decision. In my opinion, clear and concise definition of the protocol, and strict adherence in the mainline client, are the best options available. The protocol version should be indicated so that it can properly be handled. Neither the name of the client, or it's version, need to be reported in this. Protocol validation should ignore this completely. I do not believe that leaving out the client name and version entirely is the best option though. As silly as it may seem to some, vanity and recognition are very strong motivators. We want to encourage more supporters to the scene, not scare them away. The additional data provided by this could also be used for calculating various statistics. It sounds like BitcoinJ and BitDroid have already found ways of adding it in anyway. I believe it is in the best interest of the developers to formalize how this information will be included, and use it to their advantage. TL;DR: Adhere strictly to the protocol, and reject clients that do not. Add a user agent string of some kind, but keep it separate from the protocol version.