public inbox for bitcoindev@googlegroups.com
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Eric Voskuil <eric@voskuil.org>
To: Jeremy <jlrubin@mit.edu>
Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Generalizing feature negotiation when new p2p connections are setup
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2020 14:17:55 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <C9CB03D3-2328-4FEB-96EF-4FB297C78BC6@voskuil.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAD5xwhhrz8SMQ4bA6eD2VRwqmMEzVv7NmrD8kDnPfqJy092bKQ@mail.gmail.com>

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4319 bytes --]

Service bits are advertised, protocol support is not.

https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Protocol_documentation#Network_address

e

> On Aug 21, 2020, at 14:08, Jeremy <jlrubin@mit.edu> wrote:
> 
> 
> Actually we already have service bits (which are sadly limited) which allow negotiation of non bilateral feature support, so this would supercede that.
> --
> @JeremyRubin
> 
> 
>> On Fri, Aug 21, 2020 at 1:45 PM Matt Corallo <lf-lists@mattcorallo.com> wrote:
>> This seems to be pretty overengineered. Do you have a specific use-case in mind for anything more than simply continuing 
>> the pattern we've been using of sending a message indicating support for a given feature? If we find some in the future, 
>> we could deploy something like this, though the current proposal makes it possible to do it on a per-feature case.
>> 
>> The great thing about Suhas' proposal is the diff is about -1/+1 (not including tests), while still getting all the 
>> flexibility we need. Even better, the code already exists.
>> 
>> Matt
>> 
>> On 8/21/20 3:50 PM, Jeremy wrote:
>> > I have a proposal:
>> > 
>> > Protocol >= 70016 cease to send or process VERACK, and instead use HANDSHAKEACK, which is completed after feature 
>> > negotiation.
>> > 
>> > This should make everyone happy/unhappy, as in a new protocol number it's fair game to change these semantics to be 
>> > clear that we're acking more than version.
>> > 
>> > I don't care about when or where these messages are sequenced overall, it seems to have minimal impact. If I had free 
>> > choice, I slightly agree with Eric that verack should come before feature negotiation, as we want to divorce the idea 
>> > that protocol number and feature support are tied.
>> > 
>> > But once this is done, we can supplant Verack with HANDSHAKENACK or HANDSHAKEACK to signal success or failure to agree 
>> > on a connection. A NACK reason (version too high/low or an important feature missing) could be optional. Implicit NACK 
>> > would be disconnecting, but is discouraged because a peer doesn't know if it should reconnect or the failure was 
>> > intentional.
>> > 
>> > ------
>> > 
>> > AJ: I think I generally do prefer to have a FEATURE wrapper as you suggested, or a rule that all messages in this period 
>> > are interpreted as features (and may be redundant with p2p message types -- so you can literally just use the p2p 
>> > message name w/o any data).
>> > 
>> > I think we would want a semantic (which could be based just on message names, but first-class support would be nice) for 
>> > ACKing that a feature is enabled. This is because a transcript of:
>> > 
>> > NODE0:
>> > FEATURE A
>> > FEATURE B
>> > VERACK
>> > 
>> > NODE1:
>> > FEATURE A
>> > VERACK
>> > 
>> > It remains unclear if Node 1 ignored B because it's an unknown feature, or because it is disabled. A transcript like:
>> > 
>> > NODE0:
>> > FEATURE A
>> > FEATURE B
>> > FEATURE C
>> > ACK A
>> > VERACK
>> > 
>> > NODE1:
>> > FEATURE A
>> > ACK A
>> > NACK B
>> > VERACK
>> > 
>> > would make it clear that A and B are known, B is disabled, and C is unknown. C has 0 support, B Node 0 should support 
>> > inbound messages but knows not to send to Node 1, and A has full bilateral support. Maybe instead it could a message 
>> > FEATURE SEND A and FEATURE RECV A, so we can make the split explicit rather than inferred from ACK/NACK.
>> > 
>> > 
>> > ------
>> > 
>> > I'd also propose that we add a message which is SYNC, which indicates the end of a list of FEATURES and a request to 
>> > send ACKS or NACKS back (which are followed by a SYNC). This allows multi-round negotiation where based on the presence 
>> > of other features, I may expand the set of features I am offering. I think you could do without SYNC, but there are more 
>> > edge cases and the explicitness is nice given that this already introduces future complexity.
>> > 
>> > This multi-round makes it an actual negotiation rather than a pure announcement system. I don't think it would be used 
>> > much in the near term, but it makes sense to define it correctly now. Build for the future and all...
>> > 
>> > 
>> > 
>> > --
>> > @JeremyRubin <https://twitter.com/JeremyRubin><https://twitter.com/JeremyRubin>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 5829 bytes --]

  parent reply	other threads:[~2020-08-21 21:18 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 30+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2020-08-14 19:28 [bitcoin-dev] Generalizing feature negotiation when new p2p connections are setup Suhas Daftuar
2020-08-16 17:24 ` Jeremy
2020-08-16 19:06 ` Eric Voskuil
2020-08-17 20:40   ` Suhas Daftuar
2020-08-17 21:21     ` Eric Voskuil
2020-08-20 14:13   ` David A. Harding
2020-08-18 14:59 ` Matt Corallo
2020-08-18 16:54   ` Eric Voskuil
2020-08-18 17:26     ` Matt Corallo
2020-08-18 18:11       ` Eric Voskuil
2020-08-18 18:25         ` Matt Corallo
2020-08-18 18:56           ` Eric Voskuil
2020-08-21  2:36 ` Anthony Towns
2020-08-21  4:25   ` Eric Voskuil
2020-08-21 14:15   ` lf-lists
2020-08-21 16:42     ` Eric Voskuil
2020-08-21 19:50       ` Jeremy
2020-08-21 20:45         ` Matt Corallo
2020-08-21 21:08           ` Jeremy
2020-08-21 21:17             ` Jeremy
2020-08-21 22:16               ` Matt Corallo
2020-08-23 17:49                 ` Eric Voskuil
2020-08-24  9:44                   ` Suhas Daftuar
2020-08-24 13:59                     ` G. Andrew Stone
2020-08-24 19:58                   ` Jeremy
2020-08-24 20:17                     ` Eric Voskuil
2020-08-24 20:21                       ` Jeremy
2020-08-24 20:33                         ` Eric Voskuil
2020-08-21 21:17             ` Eric Voskuil [this message]
2020-08-23 17:45           ` Eric Voskuil

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=C9CB03D3-2328-4FEB-96EF-4FB297C78BC6@voskuil.org \
    --to=eric@voskuil.org \
    --cc=bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org \
    --cc=jlrubin@mit.edu \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox