Jeff Garzik [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2012-08-17 📝 Original message:On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at ...
📅 Original date posted:2012-08-17
📝 Original message:On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 9:40 AM, Pieter Wuille <pieter.wuille at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 05:05:58PM -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote:
>> On MSG_MEMTX: The current version has a much higher Just Works value.
>>
>> On empty "inv": It is generally better to do something
>> unconditionally, than have a response generated only under certain
>> conditions.
>>
>> And Alan is correct to note that unknown messages are ignored
>> (intentionally, for expansion). However, unconditionally returning a
>> response has little to do with feature probing/discovery. It is
>> simply a clear, deterministic indication that processing is complete,
>> for each invocation.
>
> I disagree. Returning an empty "inv" is a very strange way of replying
> "empty mempool". Bitcoin P2P is not a request-response protocol, and
> "inv" messages are sent where there are inventory items to send. The
> reaction to a request (for example "getblocks") can be nothing, or one
> or more "inv" messages if necessary. Special casing an empty "inv" to
> mean empty mempool is trying to hack a request-response system on top
> of the asynchronous system.
OK, just updated 'mempool' branch to not return "inv" if mempool is empty.
> If there is need for confirming the transmission of the mempool is
> complete, the proposal to use a MSG_MEMTX sounds good to me. No client
> will ever receive such an inv without requesting the mempool, and
> implementing handling MSG_MEMTX is trivial.
MSG_MEMTX is not a good idea for this use case. Just sent a ping(nonce).
Bitcoin P2P processes requests in-order, and responds accordingly.
The remote end may insert asynchronous messages into the response
stream, certainly, but responses to queries are processed and returned
in-order. A 'getdata' response is fully sent before a 'ping' response
is sent, etc.
--
Jeff Garzik
exMULTI, Inc.
jgarzik at exmulti.com
📝 Original message:On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 9:40 AM, Pieter Wuille <pieter.wuille at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 05:05:58PM -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote:
>> On MSG_MEMTX: The current version has a much higher Just Works value.
>>
>> On empty "inv": It is generally better to do something
>> unconditionally, than have a response generated only under certain
>> conditions.
>>
>> And Alan is correct to note that unknown messages are ignored
>> (intentionally, for expansion). However, unconditionally returning a
>> response has little to do with feature probing/discovery. It is
>> simply a clear, deterministic indication that processing is complete,
>> for each invocation.
>
> I disagree. Returning an empty "inv" is a very strange way of replying
> "empty mempool". Bitcoin P2P is not a request-response protocol, and
> "inv" messages are sent where there are inventory items to send. The
> reaction to a request (for example "getblocks") can be nothing, or one
> or more "inv" messages if necessary. Special casing an empty "inv" to
> mean empty mempool is trying to hack a request-response system on top
> of the asynchronous system.
OK, just updated 'mempool' branch to not return "inv" if mempool is empty.
> If there is need for confirming the transmission of the mempool is
> complete, the proposal to use a MSG_MEMTX sounds good to me. No client
> will ever receive such an inv without requesting the mempool, and
> implementing handling MSG_MEMTX is trivial.
MSG_MEMTX is not a good idea for this use case. Just sent a ping(nonce).
Bitcoin P2P processes requests in-order, and responds accordingly.
The remote end may insert asynchronous messages into the response
stream, certainly, but responses to queries are processed and returned
in-order. A 'getdata' response is fully sent before a 'ping' response
is sent, etc.
--
Jeff Garzik
exMULTI, Inc.
jgarzik at exmulti.com