Pieter Wuille [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2012-04-12 📝 Original message:On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at ...
📅 Original date posted:2012-04-12
📝 Original message:On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 11:41:05AM -0400, Gavin Andresen wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 2:39 PM, Christian Bodt <sirk390 at gmail.com> wrote:
> > I would like to discuss the following bitcoin protocol improvement proposal:
> >
> > Adding request/reply id in all messages (in the message header,
> > based on what was done for the "checksum" field)
>
> That seems like a perfectly reasonable protocol improvement to me.
> Anybody else have an opinion?
If there is a reasonable use for it, I have no objections.
However: the bitcoin P2P protocol is not fully request-reply based, and trying to use
it that may be be less intuitive than how it looks. For example, doing a second
identical "getblocks" request will not result in more "inv" replies, as the client
prevents retransmits. This is not a large problem, but maybe such an extension
should also include an extra "denied" message, which is sent if the client is
unwilling to answer (and may also be used to report transactions that are not
accepted into the memory pool, for example).
--
Pieter
Published at
2023-06-07 10:03:29Event JSON
{
"id": "a7ca69a263728f431eecb113465898432e2c76f643a0d569e7e9afc7097ad41e",
"pubkey": "5cb21bf5d7f25a9d46879713cbd32433bbc10e40ef813a3c28fe7355f49854d6",
"created_at": 1686132209,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"70f3e14328ccee7dd310e8ed2c4f7e00d554c01acb76355b74eb0489f5adac90",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"4a9de16af2df84a26f3817a41808dbb008748880432546f948a7b0f8532222a5",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"857f2f78dc1639e711f5ea703a9fc978e22ebd279abdea1861b7daa833512ee4"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2012-04-12\n📝 Original message:On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 11:41:05AM -0400, Gavin Andresen wrote:\n\u003e On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 2:39 PM, Christian Bodt \u003csirk390 at gmail.com\u003e wrote:\n\u003e \u003e I would like to discuss the following bitcoin protocol improvement proposal:\n\u003e \u003e\n\u003e \u003e Adding request/reply id in all messages (in the message header,\n\u003e \u003e based on what was done for the \"checksum\" field)\n\u003e \n\u003e That seems like a perfectly reasonable protocol improvement to me.\n\u003e Anybody else have an opinion?\n\nIf there is a reasonable use for it, I have no objections.\n\nHowever: the bitcoin P2P protocol is not fully request-reply based, and trying to use\nit that may be be less intuitive than how it looks. For example, doing a second\nidentical \"getblocks\" request will not result in more \"inv\" replies, as the client\nprevents retransmits. This is not a large problem, but maybe such an extension\nshould also include an extra \"denied\" message, which is sent if the client is\nunwilling to answer (and may also be used to report transactions that are not\naccepted into the memory pool, for example).\n\n-- \nPieter",
"sig": "5b6b25f398cedc2b9d3ae85f8bc80190400d013584a2f83c96d439e5841dbe4ee224d3a5bfb1fb7f57b25d5455d9341f7581e63d05aa1a756c68f36ae6305fb7"
}