Eric Voskuil [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2020-08-21 📝 Original message:Hi Anthony, This is what I ...

📅 Original date posted:2020-08-21
📝 Original message:Hi Anthony,

This is what I was implying in my last post (the reference to the unnecessary overload of message typing). However, if one imagines a sequence diagram for this communication it becomes obvious that all such messages are 100% redundant with verack.

e

> On Aug 20, 2020, at 19:37, Anthony Towns via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Aug 14, 2020 at 03:28:41PM -0400, Suhas Daftuar via bitcoin-dev wrote:
>> In thinking about the mechanism used there, I thought it would be helpful to
>> codify in a BIP the idea that Bitcoin network clients should ignore unknown
>> messages received before a VERACK. A draft of my proposal is available here
>> [2].
>
> Rather than allowing arbitrary messages, maybe it would make sense to
> have a specific feature negotiation message, eg:
>
> VERSION ...
> FEATURE wtxidrelay
> FEATURE packagerelay
> VERACK
>
> with the behaviour being that it's valid only between VERSION and VERACK,
> and it takes a length-prefixed-string giving the feature name, optional
> additional data, and if the feature name isn't recognised the message
> is ignored.
>
> If we were to support a "polite disconnect" feature like Jeremy suggested,
> it might be easier to do that for a generic FEATURE message, than
> reimplement it for the message proposed by each new feature.
>
> Cheers,
> aj
>
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev