Mike Hearn [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2013-06-20 📝 Original message:You can't eliminate the ...
📅 Original date posted:2013-06-20
📝 Original message:You can't eliminate the complexity (yet), otherwise you wouldn't be able to
talk to old nodes. You'll have to wait until versions prior to a particular
version are hard-forked off and can be safely dropped at connect time.
That said the reason I'm being so grumpy about this is that compared to the
complexity in the rest of the system, this is such a trivial and minor
detail. It's hardly even worth thinking about. I mean, we have a scripting
language full of opcodes nobody ever figured out how to use and the
protocol uses a mixture of byte orders, so an optional field in the version
message is really not such a big deal :)
On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 10:17 AM, Tamas Blummer <tamas at bitsofproof.com>wrote:
> I agree that this can be deferred until there is an actual new field
> without any harm. But then remember to update the BIP37 too saying that it
> is optional only if flag added in BIPXX is not present.
>
> Your argument is that this complexity is already there so why not preserve
> it. I think eliminating complexity (that has no benefit) strengthens the
> system.
>
> *Tamás Blummer*
> http://bitsofproof.com
> <http://bitsofproof.com/>;
>
> On 20.06.2013, at 09:36, Mike Hearn <mike at plan99.net> wrote:
>
> Sure but why not do that when there's an actual new field to add? Does
> anyone have a proposal for a feature that needs a new version field at the
> moment? There's no point changing the protocol now unless there's actually
> a new field to add.
>
> Anyway I still don't see why anyone cares about this issue. The Bitcoin
> protocol does not and never has required that all messages have a fixed
> number of fields per version. Any parser written on the assumption it did
> was just buggy. Look at how tx messages are relayed for the most obvious
> example of that pattern in action - it's actually the raw byte stream
> that's stored and relayed to ensure that fields added in new versions
> aren't dropped during round-tripping. Old versions are supposed to preserve
> fields from the future.
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 9:30 AM, Tamas Blummer <tamas at bitsofproof.com>wrote:
>
>> Hi Mike,
>>
>> The issue with the current parser is that those fields are conditionally
>> optional on that there will be no subsequent fields added.
>> If there will be further fields they will become manadory.
>>
>> Why not bump the version and parse the fields as mandatory from then on?
>> This would be backward compatible and cleaner
>> going forward.
>>
>> Tamas Blummer
>> http://bitsofproof.com
>> <http://bitsofproof.com/>;
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> This SF.net email is sponsored by Windows:
>>
>> Build for Windows Store.
>>
>> http://p.sf.net/sfu/windows-dev2dev
>> _______________________________________________
>> Bitcoin-development mailing list
>> Bitcoin-development at lists.sourceforge.net
>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
>>
>>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20130620/561ebbf1/attachment.html>;
📝 Original message:You can't eliminate the complexity (yet), otherwise you wouldn't be able to
talk to old nodes. You'll have to wait until versions prior to a particular
version are hard-forked off and can be safely dropped at connect time.
That said the reason I'm being so grumpy about this is that compared to the
complexity in the rest of the system, this is such a trivial and minor
detail. It's hardly even worth thinking about. I mean, we have a scripting
language full of opcodes nobody ever figured out how to use and the
protocol uses a mixture of byte orders, so an optional field in the version
message is really not such a big deal :)
On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 10:17 AM, Tamas Blummer <tamas at bitsofproof.com>wrote:
> I agree that this can be deferred until there is an actual new field
> without any harm. But then remember to update the BIP37 too saying that it
> is optional only if flag added in BIPXX is not present.
>
> Your argument is that this complexity is already there so why not preserve
> it. I think eliminating complexity (that has no benefit) strengthens the
> system.
>
> *Tamás Blummer*
> http://bitsofproof.com
> <http://bitsofproof.com/>;
>
> On 20.06.2013, at 09:36, Mike Hearn <mike at plan99.net> wrote:
>
> Sure but why not do that when there's an actual new field to add? Does
> anyone have a proposal for a feature that needs a new version field at the
> moment? There's no point changing the protocol now unless there's actually
> a new field to add.
>
> Anyway I still don't see why anyone cares about this issue. The Bitcoin
> protocol does not and never has required that all messages have a fixed
> number of fields per version. Any parser written on the assumption it did
> was just buggy. Look at how tx messages are relayed for the most obvious
> example of that pattern in action - it's actually the raw byte stream
> that's stored and relayed to ensure that fields added in new versions
> aren't dropped during round-tripping. Old versions are supposed to preserve
> fields from the future.
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 9:30 AM, Tamas Blummer <tamas at bitsofproof.com>wrote:
>
>> Hi Mike,
>>
>> The issue with the current parser is that those fields are conditionally
>> optional on that there will be no subsequent fields added.
>> If there will be further fields they will become manadory.
>>
>> Why not bump the version and parse the fields as mandatory from then on?
>> This would be backward compatible and cleaner
>> going forward.
>>
>> Tamas Blummer
>> http://bitsofproof.com
>> <http://bitsofproof.com/>;
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> This SF.net email is sponsored by Windows:
>>
>> Build for Windows Store.
>>
>> http://p.sf.net/sfu/windows-dev2dev
>> _______________________________________________
>> Bitcoin-development mailing list
>> Bitcoin-development at lists.sourceforge.net
>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
>>
>>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20130620/561ebbf1/attachment.html>;