📅 Original date posted:2020-08-20
📝 Original message:On Fri, Aug 14, 2020 at 03:28:41PM -0400, Suhas Daftuar via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> In thinking about the mechanism used there, I thought it would be helpful to
> codify in a BIP the idea that Bitcoin network clients should ignore unknown
> messages received before a VERACK. A draft of my proposal is available here
> [2].
Rather than allowing arbitrary messages, maybe it would make sense to
have a specific feature negotiation message, eg:
VERSION ...
FEATURE wtxidrelay
FEATURE packagerelay
VERACK
with the behaviour being that it's valid only between VERSION and VERACK,
and it takes a length-prefixed-string giving the feature name, optional
additional data, and if the feature name isn't recognised the message
is ignored.
If we were to support a "polite disconnect" feature like Jeremy suggested,
it might be easier to do that for a generic FEATURE message, than
reimplement it for the message proposed by each new feature.
Cheers,
aj
Anthony Towns [ARCHIVE] /
npub17r…x9l2h
2023-06-07 18:26:27
in reply to nevent1q…y7kk
Author Public Key
npub17rld56k4365lfphyd8u8kwuejey5xcazdxptserx03wc4jc9g24stx9l2hPublished at
2023-06-07 18:26:27Event JSON
{
"id": "39bf5ec16b4ad4eeb40e288147076f82b5119496a827f88d0b11f3218c05a5dc",
"pubkey": "f0feda6ad58ea9f486e469f87b3b9996494363a26982b864667c5d8acb0542ab",
"created_at": 1686162387,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"43edfd73733fa9cb455dfd9022ab700e39020c27283a7e2f0343a8c6fb631001",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"13e7b5765b7d1a3ca29812c5692b7f3e77a5ee839ad2cf7221ff85c78547556c",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"82205f272f995d9be742779a3c19a2ae08522ca14824c3a3b01525fb5459161e"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2020-08-20\n📝 Original message:On Fri, Aug 14, 2020 at 03:28:41PM -0400, Suhas Daftuar via bitcoin-dev wrote:\n\u003e In thinking about the mechanism used there, I thought it would be helpful to\n\u003e codify in a BIP the idea that Bitcoin network clients should ignore unknown\n\u003e messages received before a VERACK. A draft of my proposal is available here\n\u003e [2].\n\nRather than allowing arbitrary messages, maybe it would make sense to\nhave a specific feature negotiation message, eg:\n\n VERSION ...\n FEATURE wtxidrelay\n FEATURE packagerelay\n VERACK\n\nwith the behaviour being that it's valid only between VERSION and VERACK,\nand it takes a length-prefixed-string giving the feature name, optional\nadditional data, and if the feature name isn't recognised the message\nis ignored.\n\nIf we were to support a \"polite disconnect\" feature like Jeremy suggested,\nit might be easier to do that for a generic FEATURE message, than\nreimplement it for the message proposed by each new feature.\n\nCheers,\naj",
"sig": "642f50eb2ce0471d80c72d848b97f406e5cdb104e0ce9df9ae26f64b6950301a6625f9e00fe3f4aef321ffbdd927ee154ef77a2b91370b96de432ec491977992"
}