From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.191] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-2.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1UpaHN-0007EB-LK for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Thu, 20 Jun 2013 08:31:41 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com designates 209.85.219.46 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.219.46; envelope-from=mh.in.england@gmail.com; helo=mail-oa0-f46.google.com; Received: from mail-oa0-f46.google.com ([209.85.219.46]) by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1UpaHL-0005oO-Um for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Thu, 20 Jun 2013 08:31:41 +0000 Received: by mail-oa0-f46.google.com with SMTP id h1so7623432oag.5 for ; Thu, 20 Jun 2013 01:31:34 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.60.145.167 with SMTP id sv7mr4080490oeb.56.1371717094452; Thu, 20 Jun 2013 01:31:34 -0700 (PDT) Sender: mh.in.england@gmail.com Received: by 10.76.23.36 with HTTP; Thu, 20 Jun 2013 01:31:34 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <4DE0E45E-BB48-4DFF-9C86-ACBE312B3049@bitsofproof.com> Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2013 10:31:34 +0200 X-Google-Sender-Auth: I-Ue0Un7hYQ3PbIYVct5rBN6xeo Message-ID: From: Mike Hearn To: Tamas Blummer Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b5d94fb25b90504df91c6f4 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: 1UpaHL-0005oO-Um 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 08:31:41 -0000 --047d7b5d94fb25b90504df91c6f4 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable You can't eliminate the complexity (yet), otherwise you wouldn't be able to talk to old nodes. You'll have to wait until versions prior to a particular version are hard-forked off and can be safely dropped at connect time. That said the reason I'm being so grumpy about this is that compared to the complexity in the rest of the system, this is such a trivial and minor detail. It's hardly even worth thinking about. I mean, we have a scripting language full of opcodes nobody ever figured out how to use and the protocol uses a mixture of byte orders, so an optional field in the version message is really not such a big deal :) On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 10:17 AM, Tamas Blummer wrot= e: > I agree that this can be deferred until there is an actual new field > without any harm. But then remember to update the BIP37 too saying that i= t > is optional only if flag added in BIPXX is not present. > > Your argument is that this complexity is already there so why not preserv= e > it. I think eliminating complexity (that has no benefit) strengthens the > system. > > *Tam=C3=A1s Blummer* > http://bitsofproof.com > > > On 20.06.2013, at 09:36, Mike Hearn wrote: > > 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 th= e > moment? There's no point changing the protocol now unless there's actuall= y > 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 preser= ve > fields from the future. > > > > On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 9:30 AM, Tamas Blummer wro= te: > >> 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 >> >> > > --047d7b5d94fb25b90504df91c6f4 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
You can't eliminate the complexity (yet), otherwise yo= u wouldn't be able to talk to old nodes. You'll have to wait until = versions prior to a particular version are hard-forked off and can be safel= y dropped at connect time.

That said the reason I'm being so grumpy about this is t= hat compared to the complexity in the rest of the system, this is such a tr= ivial and minor detail. It's hardly even worth thinking about. I mean, = we have a scripting language full of opcodes nobody ever figured out how to= use and the protocol uses a mixture of byte orders, so an optional field i= n the version message is really not such a big deal :)


On Thu,= Jun 20, 2013 at 10:17 AM, Tamas Blummer <tamas@bitsofproof.com>= ; wrote:
I agree that this can be deferred until there is an actual new field withou= t any harm. But then remember to update the BIP37 too saying that it is opt= ional only if flag added in BIPXX is not present.

Your argument is that this complexity is already there so why not preserve = it. I think eliminating=C2=A0complexity (that has no benefit) strengthens t= he system.

Tam=C3=A1s Blummer

On 20.06.2013, at 09:36, Mik= e Hearn <mike@plan9= 9.net> wrote:

Su= re but why not do that when there's an actual new field to add? Does an= yone have a proposal for a feature that needs a new version field at the mo= ment? There's no point changing the protocol now unless there's act= ually a new field to add.

Anyway I still don't see why anyone cares about this iss= ue. 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 assump= tion it did was just buggy. Look at how tx messages are relayed for the mos= t obvious example of that pattern in action - it's actually the raw byt= e stream that's stored and relayed to ensure that fields added in new v= ersions 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 &l= t;tamas@bitsofpr= oof.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 sponso= red 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-de= velopment




--047d7b5d94fb25b90504df91c6f4--