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
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
|
Received: from sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.194]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-2.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <jgarzik@exmulti.com>) id 1T24Qd-0006nK-Ju
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Thu, 16 Aug 2012 18:04:19 +0000
X-ACL-Warn:
Received: from mail-qc0-f175.google.com ([209.85.216.175])
by sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1T24Qc-0004fg-Ue
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Thu, 16 Aug 2012 18:04:19 +0000
Received: by qcad10 with SMTP id d10so2594684qca.34
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Thu, 16 Aug 2012 11:04:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=google.com; s=20120113;
h=mime-version:x-originating-ip:in-reply-to:references:date
:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type:x-gm-message-state;
bh=KF6KzVIaBVVMR8aUPxav+4b65cOCx0ZisahOkVLwXUA=;
b=R8gxmFaYcmbyWdWGwFB3870RPTZmQG38AyqizXQxfyb/jEyopkAWoSU4yekNNt1pW7
5XOpGTBoBapQ2+f5mMR/T9oiFCsQBqYgKfpqeomuNKPMyqoVW0MKyoui7LC1t19G/MPc
Hkyg6IMhiSD/BV/eMqxTyp/kMaGn7Jh5p+S28TuRFL85Ej+DE0oA3qgSRpsLHZ2N1iFB
8rAgBYbr8piPsix7gEHkQtvlvo47vu1O5OeS59cmfjX/3xuieRXJ0tdDGLcMqwGmtwul
JFIuyVki19fznB/aZm7z/9SQcokokOyTLbpmqXHTMwRaOGVjfLDcvPiDzX3NOm9wICTP
CncQ==
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.229.135.149 with SMTP id n21mr1271091qct.131.1345140253339;
Thu, 16 Aug 2012 11:04:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.49.97.6 with HTTP; Thu, 16 Aug 2012 11:04:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Originating-IP: [2001:4830:1603:2:21c:c0ff:fe79:c8c2]
In-Reply-To: <20120816175637.GA13454@vps7135.xlshosting.net>
References: <CA+8xBpcfxdpg-z4OQab3379amznM30Ae-Kurko0BKuySwfBy+Q@mail.gmail.com>
<20120816175637.GA13454@vps7135.xlshosting.net>
Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2012 14:04:13 -0400
Message-ID: <CA+8xBpc-kSVm__O8MHf6LHJHmFNDR55ZkyUGagdv31f2E_ddBg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@exmulti.com>
To: Pieter Wuille <pieter.wuille@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQn4BJ71PJc+QSHTsTkBnaguCDei7MdtYZjC3z5BQL1Gbg68L6bZ7t3Ca3cBnMfs1qir5R5h
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net.
See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details.
X-Headers-End: 1T24Qc-0004fg-Ue
Cc: Bitcoin Development <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] BIP 35: add mempool message
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: <bitcoin-development.lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_name=bitcoin-development>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2012 18:04:19 -0000
On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 1:56 PM, Pieter Wuille <pieter.wuille@gmail.com> wrote:
> I suppose it is interesting in general for nodes to
> get a memory pool refill at startup anyway.
Yes.
>> An "inv" message is always returned, even if empty.
>
> I'm not sure about this last. What is it good for? inv packets can always be
> sent, even not in response to others, so it is not that this gives you an
> acknowledgement the mempool is updated?
A simple guarantee of 1:1 correspondence between request and response.
The bitcoin protocol sometimes simply elides a response when the
response would be empty, and this makes it difficult to know whether a
request is timing out or already processed.
Sending a ping(nonce) after each P2P command is another way of achieving same :)
> This seems safe, although it forces other full implementations that want to
> expose protocol version 60002 (or later) to also implement this. What do they
> think about this?
>
> I would like to suggest to allocate an extra service bit for this. We still
> have 63 left, and this is a well-defined and useful extra service that was
> not yet provided by any earlier node. Doing that would also mean that
> mempool-providing survices may be discovered before connecting to them, as
> the service bits are carried around in addr messages. Any opinions about that?
An nServices bit would be a better fit for this optional service, but
nServices bits seemed like a scarce resource, so I elected to be
conservative.
Absent the scarce-resource concern, I'd vote for an nServices bit.
--
Jeff Garzik
exMULTI, Inc.
jgarzik@exmulti.com
|
