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-1.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1UpZQF-0000xO-Ci for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Thu, 20 Jun 2013 07:36:47 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com designates 209.85.214.171 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.214.171; envelope-from=mh.in.england@gmail.com; helo=mail-ob0-f171.google.com; Received: from mail-ob0-f171.google.com ([209.85.214.171]) by sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1UpZQE-0000oT-BC for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Thu, 20 Jun 2013 07:36:47 +0000 Received: by mail-ob0-f171.google.com with SMTP id dn14so6891725obc.30 for ; Thu, 20 Jun 2013 00:36:41 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.182.215.133 with SMTP id oi5mr978701obc.83.1371713800875; Thu, 20 Jun 2013 00:36:40 -0700 (PDT) Sender: mh.in.england@gmail.com Received: by 10.76.23.36 with HTTP; Thu, 20 Jun 2013 00:36:40 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <4DE0E45E-BB48-4DFF-9C86-ACBE312B3049@bitsofproof.com> References: <4DE0E45E-BB48-4DFF-9C86-ACBE312B3049@bitsofproof.com> Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2013 09:36:40 +0200 X-Google-Sender-Auth: 1Y-hWUGdWNhuEKvPpMcGlNS1TjE Message-ID: From: Mike Hearn To: Tamas Blummer Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c25434d5bbee04df9101d8 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: 1UpZQE-0000oT-BC Cc: Bitcoin Dev Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Missing fRelayTxes in version 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: Thu, 20 Jun 2013 07:36:47 -0000 --001a11c25434d5bbee04df9101d8 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sure but why not do that when there's an actual new field to add? Does anyone have a proposal for a feature that needs a new version field at the moment? There's no point changing the protocol now unless there's actually a new field to add. Anyway I still don't see why anyone cares about this issue. The Bitcoin protocol does not and never has required that all messages have a fixed number of fields per version. Any parser written on the assumption it did was just buggy. Look at how tx messages are relayed for the most obvious example of that pattern in action - it's actually the raw byte stream that's stored and relayed to ensure that fields added in new versions aren't dropped during round-tripping. Old versions are supposed to preserve fields from the future. On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 9:30 AM, Tamas Blummer wrote: > Hi Mike, > > The issue with the current parser is that those fields are conditionally > optional on that there will be no subsequent fields added. > If there will be further fields they will become manadory. > > Why not bump the version and parse the fields as mandatory from then on? > This would be backward compatible and cleaner > going forward. > > Tamas Blummer > http://bitsofproof.com > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > 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 > > --001a11c25434d5bbee04df9101d8 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Sure but why not do that when there's an actual new fi= eld to add? Does anyone have a proposal for a feature that needs a new vers= ion field at the moment? There's no point changing the protocol now unl= ess there's actually a new field to add.

Anyway I still don't see why anyone cares about th= is issue. The Bitcoin protocol does not and never has required that all mes= sages have a fixed number of fields per version. Any parser written on the = assumption it did was just buggy. Look at how tx messages are relayed for t= he most obvious example of that pattern in action - it's actually the r= aw byte stream that's stored and relayed to ensure that fields added in= new versions aren't dropped during round-tripping. Old versions are su= pposed to preserve fields from the future.



On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 9:30 AM, Tamas Blummer <tamas@bi= tsofproof.com> wrote:
Hi Mike,

The issue with the current parser is that those fields are conditionally op= tional on that there will be no subsequent fields added.
=C2=A0
Why not bump the version and parse the fields as mandatory=C2=A0from then o= n? This would be backward compatible and cleaner
going forward.

Tamas Blummer


---------------------------------------------------= ---------------------------
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


--001a11c25434d5bbee04df9101d8--