1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
|
Return-Path: <lf-lists@mattcorallo.com>
Received: from hemlock.osuosl.org (smtp2.osuosl.org [140.211.166.133])
by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 66599C0051
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 21 Aug 2020 22:16:07 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by hemlock.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 59F3088776
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 21 Aug 2020 22:16:07 +0000 (UTC)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org
Received: from hemlock.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1])
by localhost (.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
with ESMTP id MQ6fT5uWojBb
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 21 Aug 2020 22:16:06 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail.as397444.net (mail.as397444.net [69.59.18.99])
by hemlock.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 97FE78863E
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 21 Aug 2020 22:16:06 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail.as397444.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 0980B2F1832;
Fri, 21 Aug 2020 22:16:02 +0000 (UTC)
X-DKIM-Note: Keys used to sign are likely public at https://as397444.net/dkim/
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=mattcorallo.com;
s=1598046064; t=1598048163;
bh=2CID0qSEwsxTfi1NcLmJz0UGOsdBXWfHB+s/t/EwLIo=;
h=Subject:To:Cc:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From;
b=K64JsMHp5gDIpNIbkXAkrFbTg1gk00GoSe3OktIqBLcygVMgCP4rqkGKUJf4G19ZS
dWBGiHRTwqMEHVqp4UozwJWxvIDUNNGkcoX4uKwkdF3wi7gPcfteC1aGDIAAPrOsV0
93TCyKo7zE+g7lXc+TjjeB03ssFrvfD53CK2n2KNgnNNiEyAMdn6cALu4EzMEnp7Mt
9fW8i4Z2tXZHW/rOvwHDKqVCrGlpoiUhJFjEe/nCHcOzCnQEYOsUe6MKVX+GaTkd7J
XgBg9yIpQbMuRbsAjOihMgM7ybhc//+0Dmrr+nQKihZr31IEMiM5sViS258jBGcuwm
XmWBLPP+SfmKw==
To: Jeremy <jlrubin@mit.edu>
References: <A26FA2BC-50E5-4635-95E4-56AAA969C9DA@mattcorallo.com>
<B514142F-382B-4D49-B68D-0115ECBD1D79@voskuil.org>
<CAD5xwhi9zVp3nOhFy3Hia_Md++Gdz+F5Kat_bbbZwBcmPhMGZA@mail.gmail.com>
<b6198e1a-c30b-358a-9673-247a7c305913@mattcorallo.com>
<CAD5xwhhrz8SMQ4bA6eD2VRwqmMEzVv7NmrD8kDnPfqJy092bKQ@mail.gmail.com>
<CAD5xwhjdLJvMd5gpKQXfW5Tr9RV0GTakA0pD3-xzQLHd_nY1OA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Matt Corallo <lf-lists@mattcorallo.com>
Message-ID: <afcedaf1-dd69-9402-eeeb-006bb9211b98@mattcorallo.com>
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2020 18:16:02 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAD5xwhjdLJvMd5gpKQXfW5Tr9RV0GTakA0pD3-xzQLHd_nY1OA@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Generalizing feature negotiation when new p2p
connections are setup
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev.lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/options/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2020 22:16:07 -0000
Hmm, could that not be accomplished by simply building this into new messages? eg, send "betterprotocol", if you see a
verack and no "betterprotocol" from your peer, send "worseprotocol" before you send a "verack".
Matt
On 8/21/20 5:17 PM, Jeremy wrote:
> As for an example of where you'd want multi-round, you could imagine a scenario where you have a feature A which gets
> bugfixed by the introduction of feature B, and you don't want to expose that you support A unless you first negotiate B.
> Or if you can negotiate B you should never expose A, but for old nodes you'll still do it if B is unknown to them. An
> example of this would be (were it not already out without a feature negotiation existing) WTXID/TXID relay.
>
> The SYNC primitve simply codifies what order messages should be in and when you're done for a phase of negotiation
> offering something. It can be done without, but then you have to be more careful to broadcast in the correct order and
> it's not clear when/if you should wait for more time before responding.
>
>
> On Fri, Aug 21, 2020 at 2:08 PM Jeremy <jlrubin@mit.edu <mailto:jlrubin@mit.edu>> wrote:
>
> Actually we already have service bits (which are sadly limited) which allow negotiation of non bilateral feature
> support, so this would supercede that.
> --
> @JeremyRubin <https://twitter.com/JeremyRubin><https://twitter.com/JeremyRubin>
>
|
