From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.193] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-2.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1UpFrT-00089O-TM for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Wed, 19 Jun 2013 10:43:35 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com designates 209.85.214.174 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.214.174; envelope-from=mh.in.england@gmail.com; helo=mail-ob0-f174.google.com; Received: from mail-ob0-f174.google.com ([209.85.214.174]) by sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1UpFrS-0001S6-Mg for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Wed, 19 Jun 2013 10:43:35 +0000 Received: by mail-ob0-f174.google.com with SMTP id wd20so5802182obb.5 for ; Wed, 19 Jun 2013 03:43:29 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.60.79.198 with SMTP id l6mr1578952oex.47.1371638609307; Wed, 19 Jun 2013 03:43:29 -0700 (PDT) Sender: mh.in.england@gmail.com Received: by 10.76.23.36 with HTTP; Wed, 19 Jun 2013 03:43:29 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <1371637993.17115.YahooMailNeo@web162701.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> References: <1371577555.61696.YahooMailNeo@web162703.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> <1371594630.18036.YahooMailNeo@web162703.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> <1371637993.17115.YahooMailNeo@web162701.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2013 12:43:29 +0200 X-Google-Sender-Auth: MuXqQ_Oa88b7yhSTQdZWE0SwxsI Message-ID: From: Mike Hearn To: Turkey Breast Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e0118289e116f3c04df7f808a 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: 1UpFrS-0001S6-Mg Cc: "bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net" Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Missing fRelayTxes in version message 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: Wed, 19 Jun 2013 10:43:36 -0000 --089e0118289e116f3c04df7f808a Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Bitcoin-Qt on master does send it now although it doesn't affect anything, but as old pre-filtering versions will continue to exist, you'll always have to be able to deserialize version messages without it. Bitcoin version messages have always had variable length, look at how the code is written in main.cpp. If you didn't experience issues until now all it means is that no sufficiently old nodes were talking to yours. The standard does not say it should appear. Read it again - BIP 37 says about the new version message field: If false then broadcast transactions will not be announced until a filter{load,add,clear} command is received. *If missing or true*, no change in protocol behaviour occurs. On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 12:33 PM, Turkey Breast wrote: > It's a problem if you work with iterators to deserialize the byte stream. > Even failing that, it's just sloppy programming. What happens in the future > when new fields are added to the version message? It's not a big deal to > say that this protocol version has X number of fields, that (higher) > protocol version message has X + N number of fields. Deterministic number > of fields per protocol version is sensical and how Bitcoin has been for a > long time. > > And yes, it was a problem for me that caused a lot of confusion why this > byte didn't exist in many version messages despite the standard saying it > should and the code in bitcoind indicating it should. Nowhere was this > written. It doesn't help other implementations to have an unclear behaviour > that depends on some magic from one implementation. > > ------------------------------ > *From:* Mike Hearn > *To:* Turkey Breast > *Cc:* "bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net" < > bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net> > *Sent:* Wednesday, June 19, 2013 11:39 AM > > *Subject:* Re: [Bitcoin-development] Missing fRelayTxes in version message > > It has to be optional because old clients don't send it, obviously. > > Why is this even an issue? There's no problem with variable length > messages in any codebase that I'm aware of. Is this solving some actual > problem? > > > On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 12:30 AM, Turkey Breast wrote: > > That's me. I never said to make all messages fixed length. I said to make > a fixed number of fields per protocol. So given a protocol version number, > you know the number of fields in a message. This is not only easier for > parsing messages, but just good practice. I don't see why a 1 byte flag > needs to be optional anyway. > > ------------------------------ > *From:* Mike Hearn > *To:* Turkey Breast > *Cc:* Bitcoin Dev > *Sent:* Tuesday, June 18, 2013 9:48 PM > *Subject:* Re: [Bitcoin-development] Missing fRelayTxes in version message > > It's not a bug (although there was recently a change to make bitcoind/qt > always send this field anyway). > > I don't know where Amir is going with BIP 60. Version messages have always > been variable length. There's nothing inherent in the Bitcoin protocol that > says all messages are fixed length, indeed, tx messages are allowed to have > arbitrary data appended after them that gets relayed. > > > On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 7:45 PM, Turkey Breast wrote: > > See this BIP. I'm not sure if this is a bug or what, but it would be good > if messages always had a fixed number of fields per protocol version. > > https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/BIP_0060#Code_Updates > > This BIP details everything that needs to be done and proposes a protocol > upgrade. > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > This SF.net email is sponsored by Windows: > > Build for Windows Store. > > http://p.sf.net/sfu/windows-dev2dev > _______________________________________________ > Bitcoin-development mailing list > Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > This SF.net email is sponsored by Windows: > > Build for Windows Store. > > http://p.sf.net/sfu/windows-dev2dev > _______________________________________________ > Bitcoin-development mailing list > Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > This SF.net email is sponsored by Windows: > > Build for Windows Store. > > http://p.sf.net/sfu/windows-dev2dev > _______________________________________________ > Bitcoin-development mailing list > Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development > > --089e0118289e116f3c04df7f808a Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Bitcoin-Qt on master does send it now although it doesn= 9;t affect anything, but as old pre-filtering versions will continue to exi= st, you'll always have to be able to deserialize version messages witho= ut it.

Bitcoin version messages have always had variable leng= th, look at how the code is written in main.cpp. If you didn't experien= ce issues until now all it means is that no sufficiently old nodes were tal= king to yours.

The standard does not say it should appear.= Read it again - BIP 37 says about the new version message field:
If= false then broadcast transactions will not be announced until a filter{loa= d,add,clear} command is received. If missing or true, no change in p= rotocol behaviour occurs.


On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 12:33 PM, Turkey Breast <turkeybreast@yahoo.com> wrote:
It's a problem if yo= u work with iterators to deserialize the byte stream. Even failing that, it= 's just sloppy programming. What happens in the future when new fields = are added to the version message? It's not a big deal to say that this = protocol version has X number of fields, that (higher) protocol version mes= sage has X + N number of fields. Deterministic number of fields per protoco= l version is sensical and how Bitcoin has been for a long time.

<= div style=3D"font-style:normal;font-size:16px;background-color:transparent;= font-family:times new roman,new york,times,serif"> And yes, it was a problem for me that caused a lot of confusion why this byte didn't exist in many vers= ion messages despite the standard saying it should and the code in bitcoind= indicating it should. Nowhere was this written. It doesn't help other = implementations to have an unclear behaviour that depends on some magic fro= m one implementation.

=
From: Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net>
= To: Turkey Breast <turkeybreast@yahoo.co= m>
Cc: "bitcoin-= development@lists.sourceforge.net" <bitcoin-development@lis= ts.sourceforge.net>
Sent: Wednesday, June 19, 2= 013 11:39 AM

Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Missing fRelayTxes in versio= n message

It has to be optional because old clients don't s= end it, obviously.

Why is this even an issue? There'= s no problem with variable length messages in any codebase that I'm awa= re of. Is this solving some actual problem?


On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 12:30 AM, Turkey Breast <turkeybreast@yahoo.com> wrote:
That's me. I never said to make all messag= es fixed length. I said to make a fixed number of fields per protocol. So g= iven a protocol version number, you know the number of fields in a message.= This is not only easier for parsing messages, but just good practice. I do= n't see why a 1 byte flag needs to be optional anyway.

From: Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net><= br> To: Turkey Breast <= turkeybreast@yahoo.com>
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge= .net>
Sent: Tues= day, June 18, 2013 9:48 PM
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-devel= opment] Missing fRelayTxes in version message
=

It's not a bug (although there was recently a cha= nge to make bitcoind/qt always send this field anyway).=C2=A0

I don't know where Amir is going with BIP 60. Version messages ha= ve always been variable length. There's nothing inherent in the Bitcoin= protocol that says all messages are fixed length, indeed, tx messages are = allowed to have arbitrary data appended after them that gets relayed.


On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 7:45 PM, Turkey Breast <turkeybreast@yahoo.com> wrote:
See this BIP. I'm not sure if this is a bug or w= hat, but it would be good if messages always had a fixed number of fields p= er protocol version.


This BIP details everything that needs to be done and proposes a protocol u= pgrade.

------------------------------------------= ------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by Windows:

Build for Windows Store.

http://p.= sf.net/sfu/windows-dev2dev
_________________________________________= ______
Bitcoin-development mailing list
Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/li= stinfo/bitcoin-development





-----------= -------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by Windows:

Build for Windows Store.

http://p.sf.net/sfu/windows-dev2dev
________________________= _______________________
Bitcoin-development mailing list
Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/li= stinfo/bitcoin-development





-----------= -------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by Windows:

Build for Windows Store.

http://p.= sf.net/sfu/windows-dev2dev
_________________________________________= ______
Bitcoin-development mailing list
Bitcoin-develo= pment@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-de= velopment


--089e0118289e116f3c04df7f808a--