📅 Original date posted:2020-08-21 📝 Original message:Hmm, could that not be ...

Matt Corallo [ARCHIVE] /

npub1e46…xmcu

2023-06-07 18:26:30

in reply to nevent1q…6clu

📅 Original date posted:2020-08-21
📝 Original message: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 at mit.edu <mailto:jlrubin at 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>;
>

Author Public Key

npub1e46n428mcyfwznl7nlsf6d3s7rhlwm9x3cmkuqzt3emmdpadmkaqqjxmcu

Show more details

Published at

2023-06-07 18:26:30

Kind type

1 Short Text Note

Event JSON

{ "id": "96586bc7c1ac894ac4c9007f8aa5c732639b300a3ae31e62d1fd352fabc03b35", "pubkey": "cd753aa8fbc112e14ffe9fe09d3630f0eff76ca68e376e004b8e77b687adddba", "created_at": 1686162390, "kind": 1, "tags": [ [ "e", "43edfd73733fa9cb455dfd9022ab700e39020c27283a7e2f0343a8c6fb631001", "", "root" ], [ "e", "07f79e982e2b9437de1d3d8002f9f9f8d0f030d58076df7836b018288c4019ae", "", "reply" ], [ "p", "01f53a3166b3b23139201763777e070fcfed5555ad7555f7e90114c0c9e0e8b4" ] ], "content": "📅 Original date posted:2020-08-21\n📝 Original message:Hmm, could that not be accomplished by simply building this into new messages? eg, send \"betterprotocol\", if you see a \nverack and no \"betterprotocol\" from your peer, send \"worseprotocol\" before you send a \"verack\".\n\nMatt\n\nOn 8/21/20 5:17 PM, Jeremy wrote:\n\u003e As for an example of where you'd want multi-round, you could imagine a scenario where you have a feature A which gets \n\u003e bugfixed by the introduction of feature B, and you don't want to expose that you support A unless you first negotiate B. \n\u003e 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 \n\u003e example of this would be (were it not already out without a feature negotiation existing) WTXID/TXID relay.\n\u003e \n\u003e The SYNC primitve simply codifies what order messages should be in and when you're done for a phase of negotiation \n\u003e offering something. It can be done without, but then you have to be more careful to broadcast in the correct order and \n\u003e it's not clear when/if you should wait for more time before responding.\n\u003e \n\u003e \n\u003e On Fri, Aug 21, 2020 at 2:08 PM Jeremy \u003cjlrubin at mit.edu \u003cmailto:jlrubin at mit.edu\u003e\u003e wrote:\n\u003e \n\u003e Actually we already have service bits (which are sadly limited) which allow negotiation of non bilateral feature\n\u003e support, so this would supercede that.\n\u003e --\n\u003e @JeremyRubin \u003chttps://twitter.com/JeremyRubin\u003e\u003chttps://twitter.com/JeremyRubin\u003e\n\u003e", "sig": "5b178d14db41fa3d1ec00891c4c484330eecbfa4ba43868f642e58aea447ab632f6066f23560ec0cf056ad843556b3e3ccfc69b2af520bb32bf6553c13898f0a" }