Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 23A8CAB9 for ; Fri, 24 Mar 2017 01:58:22 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-pg0-f53.google.com (mail-pg0-f53.google.com [74.125.83.53]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1EC87130 for ; Fri, 24 Mar 2017 01:58:21 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-pg0-f53.google.com with SMTP id g2so783050pge.3 for ; Thu, 23 Mar 2017 18:58:21 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=voskuil-org.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version :in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=HtT2NmEwWw74SRfLiP28ZaKtMhxFMPp4F7dfjkoEIwg=; b=CmO1mG2VCNVc2vNZCQ6lFtTVGRkm9RSSMjDwgVOYjRDg4sou5yJpN47yMHXeFMnEkw mwNheIJCPOq8Zvde3kSGMNUuBk5hTzqKi5JKi8PN0BEGeD7mc3X/23rfmnN9XcM3YQz+ rH3wyVmoiZmzUmVcfUg/obAS13wkxQEh6aWDMJ1ejNRkG55Vr0zIbj88LyDYmqdle4Wt IxtcNAIKI5e0OgpiD+PAbrEtbH5dDgGBVwz9YoHIp3FFTf/j/+Apm5FXKYmbtQJO86Tq XILmLoeBbvovE0GODVPRerlHlWamiB9AWe/OjunGyO9o4x1TYbQ7aRaiF5AgvnZ91WOb T/DQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=HtT2NmEwWw74SRfLiP28ZaKtMhxFMPp4F7dfjkoEIwg=; b=DgA9U4Qnnod3sYdKrrJDD9WModqZuvv/UZgBc1PdiJlqDdmfmsrouhhIKN/JlpgN7c Quv+78JTbHV05rvAkR/KtpOOfeIWB4zTlttRkyplryYwzy86WCPOC0WFF+CN3t/4hC2c zCdzjzU5xN8B5U5upj4t4GnG7YrigIhSopxR1IgqgIF+PmK6lko5kP+jeBkYCdEi8Uk4 C/DsynWS18EDXN0dnhg6gUlQr4ogeL6biNbj50oEGmp4b9k5qKxQgQVE8oYnEsT+bBEn wHLqdhSF8ORfEnB4LJ+l9WzngYfGC0UrfgVokbqO16lZFQU18XhHzyRzh6iRdNZRZIGA 8fMA== X-Gm-Message-State: AFeK/H0R4LbTY3K7U+Hk9I6zHbJog1IMhKIhi/14NrYbofF51pU/RVBNEh8M0pdUUwTRQA== X-Received: by 10.98.215.70 with SMTP id v6mr6416414pfl.121.1490320700592; Thu, 23 Mar 2017 18:58:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ?IPv6:2601:600:9000:d69e:4d40:3621:33ec:eb24? ([2601:600:9000:d69e:4d40:3621:33ec:eb24]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id d130sm712935pga.17.2017.03.23.18.58.19 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 23 Mar 2017 18:58:20 -0700 (PDT) To: Pieter Wuille , Bitcoin Protocol Discussion , Juan Garavaglia References: From: Eric Voskuil X-Enigmail-Draft-Status: N1110 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2017 18:58:37 -0700 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.5.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 24 Mar 2017 02:01:40 +0000 Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Issolated Bitcoin Nodes X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2017 01:58:22 -0000 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 On 03/23/2017 05:20 PM, Pieter Wuille via bitcoin-dev wrote: > On Thu, Mar 23, 2017 at 3:37 PM, Juan Garavaglia via bitcoin-dev > wrote: >> Long story short, when nodes 0.13+ receive blocks from 0.13+ >> nodes all is ok, and those blocks propagate to older nodes with >> no issues. But when a block tries to be propagated from bitcoind >> 0.12.+ to newer ones those blocks are NOT being propagated to the >> peers with newer versions while these newer blocks are being >> propagated to peers with older versions with no issues. >> >> My conclusion is that we have a backward compatibility issue >> between 0.13.X+ and older versions. > > Hello Juan, > > this is expected behaviour. Nodes with segwit active only download > blocks from other segwit peers, as old peers cannot provide the > witness data they need to verify the blocks. Juan's statement pertains to incompatibility, not mysterious causation. Clearly it's a material consideration. Is it an oversight that this is not documented as an incompatibility in any of the segwit BIPs? I don't recall any discussion on the importance of segwit bridge nodes. Is there a plan for bridging mainnet? e -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux) iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJY1H1AAAoJEDzYwH8LXOFOAk4H/RrJyexvyFKXfY7qC0bGCVwN 2iZ0wR0n/H0Z0qfP5nzDID0RARC3F/KFAAeLTaCIZa5uI0h3MrPbNm7hSi/m0nHJ mTzfJf0E8g+ETzyDpWjgR25ta6n3VdKp2tnNrY3z/ojnGYBFthpRDWV09K5trX5k qMyoPDfTP8jVIwihqx3MZLBnfiQKlEjNxCxmnuL7bh37msp6WK+elKudSrDBPiIi ljQ+u5NyeKWY+qzEzKPShIKnm3wC4K/RiiZIUvz60x6PCHr8OZGTEiKhPLWznVuj Q9gVtHxFzDpMZbxo4vP4nH+isQgqNa9gQ2E5783OC0/lpxHCoZEsgsD5lTAcp08= =GyRS -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----