Mike Hearn [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2013-06-20 📝 Original message:Sure but why not do that ...

📅 Original date posted:2013-06-20
📝 Original message: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/20130620/750bf247/attachment.html>;