David A. Harding [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2019-10-18 📝 Original message:On Thu, Oct 17, 2019 at ...
📅 Original date posted:2019-10-18
📝 Original message:On Thu, Oct 17, 2019 at 01:16:47PM -0700, Eric Voskuil via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> As this is a P2P protocol change it should be exposed as a version
> increment (and a BIP) [...]
>
> BIP61 is explicit:
>
> “All implementations of the P2P protocol version 70,002 and later
> should support the reject message.“
I don't think a new BIP or a version number increment is necessary.
1. "Should support" isn't the same as "must support". See
https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2119 ; by that reading,
implementations with protocol versions above 70,002 are not required
to support the reject message.
2. If you don't implement a BIP, as Bitcoin Core explicitly doesn't any
more for BIP61[1], you're not bound by its conditions.
-Dave
[1] https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/doc/bips.md "BIP61
[...] Support was removed in v0.20.0"
📝 Original message:On Thu, Oct 17, 2019 at 01:16:47PM -0700, Eric Voskuil via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> As this is a P2P protocol change it should be exposed as a version
> increment (and a BIP) [...]
>
> BIP61 is explicit:
>
> “All implementations of the P2P protocol version 70,002 and later
> should support the reject message.“
I don't think a new BIP or a version number increment is necessary.
1. "Should support" isn't the same as "must support". See
https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2119 ; by that reading,
implementations with protocol versions above 70,002 are not required
to support the reject message.
2. If you don't implement a BIP, as Bitcoin Core explicitly doesn't any
more for BIP61[1], you're not bound by its conditions.
-Dave
[1] https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/doc/bips.md "BIP61
[...] Support was removed in v0.20.0"