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-3.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1WuJUr-0004rJ-Kj for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Tue, 10 Jun 2014 10:41:41 +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 1WuJUq-0001wk-Nk for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Tue, 10 Jun 2014 10:41:41 +0000 Received: by mail-oa0-f46.google.com with SMTP id g18so7278079oah.5 for ; Tue, 10 Jun 2014 03:41:35 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.182.144.161 with SMTP id sn1mr1487533obb.82.1402396895284; Tue, 10 Jun 2014 03:41:35 -0700 (PDT) Sender: mh.in.england@gmail.com Received: by 10.76.71.162 with HTTP; Tue, 10 Jun 2014 03:41:35 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20140608214529.GB4191@savin> References: <20140606084852.GA30247@netbook.cypherspace.org> <20140606090441.GA19256@savin> <20140606104543.GA31085@netbook.cypherspace.org> <20140606164639.GB14891@savin> <20140606170524.GA29195@savin> <20140606174545.GB29195@savin> <53936B87.3060804@gmail.com> <20140608214529.GB4191@savin> Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2014 18:41:35 +0800 X-Google-Sender-Auth: wAh_PjVXl3mGAJuBqPmHqY9vJdg Message-ID: From: Mike Hearn To: Peter Todd Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e0158ac78c715b204fb78f8c5 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: 1WuJUq-0001wk-Nk Cc: Bitcoin Dev Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Bloom bait 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: Tue, 10 Jun 2014 10:41:41 -0000 --089e0158ac78c715b204fb78f8c5 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 > > A NODE_BLOOM service bit is a very reasonable > and simple way to do exactly that, and is defacto what implementations > that don't support bloom filters do anyway. > BTW, I find it curious that any nodes have code to disconnect peers that send Bloom filters. It shouldn't be necessary. Bitcoinj is the only large scale user of filtering and it will disconnect itself if a peer advertises support for a version lower than 70000. If a node advertises support for this version or higher then it is supposed to implement BIP37. It sounds like some node authors decided to advertise support for a protocol version they didn't bother implementing, which would be a bug. --089e0158ac78c715b204fb78f8c5 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
=C2=A0A NODE_BLOOM service bit is a very reasonable
and simple way to do exactly that, and is defacto what implementations
that don't support bloom filters do anyway.

BTW, I find it curious that any nodes have code to disconnect peer= s that send Bloom filters. It shouldn't be necessary. Bitcoinj is the o= nly large scale user of filtering and it will disconnect itself if a peer a= dvertises support for a version lower than 70000. If a node advertises supp= ort for this version or higher then it is supposed to implement BIP37.

It sounds like some node authors decided to advertise s= upport for a protocol version they didn't bother implementing, which wo= uld be a bug.
--089e0158ac78c715b204fb78f8c5--