Eric Voskuil [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2019-10-20 📝 Original message:I agree, thanks. FWIW ...
📅 Original date posted:2019-10-20
📝 Original message:I agree, thanks.
FWIW I’ve never been a fan of the ‘reject’ message, or its implementation.
https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/wiki/Comments:BIP-0061
e
> On Oct 18, 2019, at 18:46, David A. Harding <dave at dtrt.org> wrote:
>
> 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"
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20191020/d2498549/attachment-0001.html>
📝 Original message:I agree, thanks.
FWIW I’ve never been a fan of the ‘reject’ message, or its implementation.
https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/wiki/Comments:BIP-0061
e
> On Oct 18, 2019, at 18:46, David A. Harding <dave at dtrt.org> wrote:
>
> 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"
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20191020/d2498549/attachment-0001.html>