📅 Original date posted:2020-08-23
📝 Original message:> On Aug 21, 2020, at 15:16, Matt Corallo <lf-lists at mattcorallo.com> wrote:
>
> Hmm, could that not be accomplished by simply building this into new messages? eg, send "betterprotocol", if you see a verack and no "betterprotocol" from your peer, send "worseprotocol" before you send a "verack".
>
> Matt
>
>> On 8/21/20 5:17 PM, Jeremy wrote:
>> As for an example of where you'd want multi-round, you could imagine a scenario where you have a feature A which gets bugfixed by the introduction of feature B, and you don't want to expose that you support A unless you first negotiate B. Or if you can negotiate B you should never expose A, but for old nodes you'll still do it if B is unknown to them.
This seems to imply a security benefit (I can’t discern any other rationale for this complexity). It should be clear that this is no more than trivially weak obfuscation and not worth complicating the protocol to achieve.
>> An example of this would be (were it not already out without a feature negotiation existing) WTXID/TXID relay.
>> The SYNC primitve simply codifies what order messages should be in and when you're done for a phase of negotiation offering something. It can be done without, but then you have to be more careful to broadcast in the correct order and it's not clear when/if you should wait for more time before responding.
>> On Fri, Aug 21, 2020 at 2:08 PM Jeremy <jlrubin at mit.edu <mailto:jlrubin at mit.edu>> wrote:
>> Actually we already have service bits (which are sadly limited) which allow negotiation of non bilateral feature
>> support, so this would supercede that.
>> --
>> @JeremyRubin <https://twitter.com/JeremyRubin><https://twitter.com/JeremyRubin>;
Eric Voskuil [ARCHIVE] /
npub1sg…ppx3c
2023-06-07 18:26:30
in reply to nevent1q…vf6m
Author Public Key
npub1sgs97fe0n9wehe6zw7drcxdz4cy9yt9pfqjv8gasz5jlk4zezc0quppx3cPublished at
2023-06-07 18:26:30Event JSON
{
"id": "d9940c3e72e9d6d8db0eef1874c169f51d8a4d614f69e26877002bd1489d429b",
"pubkey": "82205f272f995d9be742779a3c19a2ae08522ca14824c3a3b01525fb5459161e",
"created_at": 1686162390,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"43edfd73733fa9cb455dfd9022ab700e39020c27283a7e2f0343a8c6fb631001",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"96586bc7c1ac894ac4c9007f8aa5c732639b300a3ae31e62d1fd352fabc03b35",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"cd753aa8fbc112e14ffe9fe09d3630f0eff76ca68e376e004b8e77b687adddba"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2020-08-23\n📝 Original message:\u003e On Aug 21, 2020, at 15:16, Matt Corallo \u003clf-lists at mattcorallo.com\u003e wrote:\n\u003e \n\u003e Hmm, could that not be accomplished by simply building this into new messages? eg, send \"betterprotocol\", if you see a verack and no \"betterprotocol\" from your peer, send \"worseprotocol\" before you send a \"verack\".\n\u003e \n\u003e Matt\n\u003e \n\u003e\u003e On 8/21/20 5:17 PM, Jeremy wrote:\n\u003e\u003e As for an example of where you'd want multi-round, you could imagine a scenario where you have a feature A which gets bugfixed by the introduction of feature B, and you don't want to expose that you support A unless you first negotiate B. Or if you can negotiate B you should never expose A, but for old nodes you'll still do it if B is unknown to them.\n\nThis seems to imply a security benefit (I can’t discern any other rationale for this complexity). It should be clear that this is no more than trivially weak obfuscation and not worth complicating the protocol to achieve.\n\n\u003e\u003e An example of this would be (were it not already out without a feature negotiation existing) WTXID/TXID relay.\n\u003e\u003e The SYNC primitve simply codifies what order messages should be in and when you're done for a phase of negotiation offering something. It can be done without, but then you have to be more careful to broadcast in the correct order and it's not clear when/if you should wait for more time before responding.\n\u003e\u003e On Fri, Aug 21, 2020 at 2:08 PM Jeremy \u003cjlrubin at mit.edu \u003cmailto:jlrubin at mit.edu\u003e\u003e wrote:\n\u003e\u003e Actually we already have service bits (which are sadly limited) which allow negotiation of non bilateral feature\n\u003e\u003e support, so this would supercede that.\n\u003e\u003e --\n\u003e\u003e @JeremyRubin \u003chttps://twitter.com/JeremyRubin\u003e\u003chttps://twitter.com/JeremyRubin\u003e",
"sig": "db61c2e20a9237ca31379e963cab25c0756f913f3a624fe69b2b7f060a17d736f5ea08979274a431ae889b0d652656b59cad0d36a4239ed7b014ae45e05ee2a8"
}