Turkey Breast [ARCHIVE] / is on Nostr

⚠️ This account is not associated with a real person. It's an archival account for mailing list messages.
🗓️ Active from 2013-06-18 to 2013-09-14
💬 Posted a total of 6 messages
📚 Participated in the following categories: Bitcoin-development
🔇 Please do not DM this user as it's used for archive purposes only.

Last Notes

2023-06-07 15:06:49

- reply

📅 Original date posted:2013-09-13
📝 Original message:http://www.proofofexistence.com/
and
https://github.com/spesmilo/sx/blob/master/src/sx-embed-addr
Embedding data in the blockchain as a hash is out there and a reality.
I suggest that there should be a new payment type that is unspendable to support this.
Like you have pubkey_hash, pubkey, script_hash, ..., "embed_hash"
Maybe just a script with a single 20 byte push data.
Advantages:
* Optimisation possibilities (you know this can't be spent, and the script can't be processed).
* Avoid indexing in an address database Bitcoin addresses which are currently being
used to index data. They will never be spent, yet they will be indexed because they look
identical to normal Bitcoin addresses.
By separating this class of Bitcoin usage, we can improve the core Bitcoin payments system.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20130913/60ceb394/attachment.html>

2023-06-07 15:03:48

- reply

📅 Original date posted:2013-06-20
📝 Original message:I don't get why this is such a contentious change?
Before I was able to use asserts to check the expected length of length of messages per protocol version, I could pass in dumb iterators that just parse the byte stream and I could serialize and deserialize a message to check the parser is correct (in debug mode).
This 'simple' change causes all that behaviour to be lost. You can no longer just use iterators but must know the remaining length (or if you use std::distance, you can only use specific std containers - not just anything with an iterator and an operator++). You cannot check the deserialization process by serializing the deserialized message and comparing it to the original data (because the bool is always present in the serializer).
It's a bit stupid you call it buggy code when this behaviour has never been present in Bitcoin. The BIP doesn't introduce any unwanted side-effects and is a trivial reasonable change.
If you want optional fields then the proper way to do it, is to either set a flag in the Services field of the "version" message to indicate different formats for messages (i.e use this template structure for a message, not that one), introduce a new message (if the changes are big), to approve/improve Stefan's BIP 32 for custom services or to have a value in the byte stream indicating which fields are present (maybe a bitfield or so).
Using a quirk of an implementation is just bad form and sloppy coding. Optional fields should have their own mechanism that allows them to remain as optional fields between protocol version upgrades.
The bitcoind software can probably be improved too, by checking that the length of the version message is consistent for the protocol version given by the connected node. Right now it makes no assumptions based on that which is a mistake (new clients can broadcast older version messages that don't have all the fields required). Probably the software should penalise hosts which do that.
What's the big deal to update the protocol version number from 70001 to 70002? It's not like we'll run out of integers. The field has now gone from optional to required now anyway - that's a behaviour change. It'd be good to enforce that. I see this as a bug.
________________________________
From: Mike Hearn <mike at plan99.net>
To: Pieter Wuille <pieter.wuille at gmail.com>
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development at lists.sourceforge.net>; Tamas Blummer <tamas at bitsofproof.com>
Sent: Thursday, June 20, 2013 11:17 AM
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Missing fRelayTxes in version
There's no problem, but there's no benefit either. It also locks us in to a potentially problematic guarantee - what if in future we want to have, say, two optional new pieces of data in two different messages. We don't want to require that if version > X then you have to implement all features up to and including that point.
Essentially the number of fields in a message is like a little version number, just for that message. It adds flexibility to keep it that way, and there's no downside, seeing as that bridge was already crossed and people with parsers that can't handle it need to fix their code anyway.
So I have a slight preference for keeping things the way they are, it keeps things flexible for future and costs nothing.
On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 11:06 AM, Pieter Wuille <pieter.wuille at gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 09:36:40AM +0200, Mike Hearn wrote:
>> Sure but why not do that when there's an actual new field to add? Does
>> anyone have a proposal for a feature that needs a new version field at the
>> moment? There's no point changing the protocol now unless there's actually
>> a new field to add.
>>
>> Anyway I still don't see why anyone cares about this issue. The Bitcoin
>> protocol does not and never has required that all messages have a fixed
>> number of fields per version. Any parser written on the assumption it did
>> was just buggy. Look at how tx messages are relayed for the most obvious
>> example of that pattern in action - it's actually the raw byte stream
>> that's stored and relayed to ensure that fields added in new versions
>> aren't dropped during round-tripping. Old versions are supposed to preserve
>> fields from the future.
>
>Actually, that is not the same issue. What is being argued for here is that
>the version in the version message itself should indicate which fields are
>present, so a parser doesn't need to look at the length of the message. That
>seems like a minor but very reasonable request to me, and it's trivial to do.
>That doesn't mean that you may receive versions higher than what you know of,
>and thus messages with fields you don't know about. That doesn't matter, you
>can just ignore them.
>
>I see no problem with raising the protocol version number to indicate
>"all fields up to fRelayTxes are required, if the announced nVersion is above N".
>In fact, I believe (though haven't checked) all previous additions to the version
>message were accompanied with a protocol version (then: client version) increase
>as well.
>
>--
>Pieter
>
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by Windows:
Build for Windows Store.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/windows-dev2dev
_______________________________________________
Bitcoin-development mailing list
Bitcoin-development at lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20130620/0b45aac2/attachment.html>

2023-06-07 15:03:42

- reply

📅 Original date posted:2013-06-20
📝 Original message:I never said that Bitcoin message field lengths should always be the same. But before this change they certainly were constant per protocol version. All I'm saying is that optional lengths shouldn't be used (a field exists or not) and for every field change, the protocol version should be upgraded.
Now that fRelayTxes is part of the protocol, the version number should be upgraded to reflect this fact.
________________________________
From: Mike Hearn <mike at plan99.net>
To: Paul Lyon <pmlyon at hotmail.ca>
Cc: Turkey Breast <turkeybreast at yahoo.com>; "bitcoin-development at lists.sourceforge.net" <bitcoin-development at lists.sourceforge.net>
Sent: Wednesday, June 19, 2013 3:20 PM
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Missing fRelayTxes in version message
If you want to criticise the Bitcoin protocol for sloppyness, the variable length of some messages isn't where I'd start.
Note that ping has the same issue, its length has changed over time to include the nonce.
If your parser can't handle that kind of thing, you need to fix it. The protocol has always worked that way.
On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 3:03 PM, Paul Lyon <pmlyon at hotmail.ca> wrote:
I’m also running into this exact same issue with my parser, now I understand why the relay field behavior I was seeing doesn’t match the wiki.
>
>So to parse a version message, you can’t rely on the protocol version? You have to know how long the payload is, and then parse the message accordingly? I agree with Turkey Breast, this seems a bit sloppy to me.
>
>Paul
>
>P.S. I’ve never used a dev mailing list before and I want to get involved with the Bitcoin dev community, so let me know if I’m horribly violating any mailing list etiquette. 😊
>
>From: Mike Hearn
>Sent: ‎Wednesday‎, ‎June‎ ‎19‎, ‎2013 ‎7‎:‎43‎ ‎AM
>To: Turkey Breast
>Cc: bitcoin-development at lists.sourceforge.net
>
>Bitcoin-Qt on master does send it now although it doesn't affect anything, but as old pre-filtering versions will continue to exist, you'll always have to be able to deserialize version messages without it.
>
>
>Bitcoin version messages have always had variable length, look at how the code is written in main.cpp. If you didn't experience issues until now all it means is that no sufficiently old nodes were talking to yours.
>
>
>The standard does not say it should appear. Read it again - BIP 37 says about the new version message field:
>If false then broadcast transactions will not be announced until a filter{load,add,clear} command is received. If missing or true, no change in protocol behaviour occurs.
>
>
>
>
>On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 12:33 PM, Turkey Breast <turkeybreast at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>It's a problem if you work with iterators to deserialize the byte stream. Even failing that, it's just sloppy programming. What happens in the future when new fields are added to the version message? It's not a big deal to say that this protocol version has X number of fields, that (higher) protocol version message has X + N number of fields. Deterministic number of fields per protocol version is sensical and how Bitcoin has been for a long time.
>>
>>
>>And yes, it was a problem for me that caused a lot of confusion why this byte didn't exist in many version messages despite the standard saying it should and the code in bitcoind indicating it should. Nowhere was this written. It doesn't help other implementations to have an unclear behaviour that depends on some magic from one implementation.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>________________________________
>> From: Mike Hearn <mike at plan99.net>
>>To: Turkey Breast <turkeybreast at yahoo.com>
>>Cc: "bitcoin-development at lists.sourceforge.net" <bitcoin-development at lists.sourceforge.net>
>>Sent: Wednesday, June 19, 2013 11:39 AM
>>
>>Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Missing fRelayTxes in version message
>>
>>
>>
>>It has to be optional because old clients don't send it, obviously.
>>
>>
>>Why is this even an issue? There's no problem with variable length messages in any codebase that I'm aware of. Is this solving some actual problem?
>>
>>
>>
>>On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 12:30 AM, Turkey Breast <turkeybreast at yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>That's me. I never said to make all messages fixed length. I said to make a fixed number of fields per protocol. So given a protocol version number, you know the number of fields in a message. This is not only easier for parsing messages, but just good practice. I don't see why a 1 byte flag needs to be optional anyway.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>________________________________
>>> From: Mike Hearn <mike at plan99.net>
>>>To: Turkey Breast <turkeybreast at yahoo.com>
>>>Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development at lists.sourceforge.net>
>>>Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2013 9:48 PM
>>>Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Missing fRelayTxes in version message
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>It's not a bug (although there was recently a change to make bitcoind/qt always send this field anyway).
>>>
>>>
>>>I don't know where Amir is going with BIP 60. Version messages have always been variable length. There's nothing inherent in the Bitcoin protocol that says all messages are fixed length, indeed, tx messages are allowed to have arbitrary data appended after them that gets relayed.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 7:45 PM, Turkey Breast <turkeybreast at yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>See this BIP. I'm not sure if this is a bug or what, but it would be good if messages always had a fixed number of fields per protocol version.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/BIP_0060#Code_Updates
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>This BIP details everything that needs to be done and proposes a protocol upgrade.
>>>>
>>>>------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>This SF.net email is sponsored by Windows:
>>>>
>>>>Build for Windows Store.
>>>>
>>>>http://p.sf.net/sfu/windows-dev2dev
>>>>_______________________________________________
>>>>Bitcoin-development mailing list
>>>>Bitcoin-development at lists.sourceforge.net
>>>>https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>This SF.net email is sponsored by Windows:
>>>
>>>Build for Windows Store.
>>>
>>>http://p.sf.net/sfu/windows-dev2dev
>>>_______________________________________________
>>>Bitcoin-development mailing list
>>>Bitcoin-development at lists.sourceforge.net
>>>https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>This SF.net email is sponsored by Windows:
>>
>>Build for Windows Store.
>>
>>http://p.sf.net/sfu/windows-dev2dev
>>_______________________________________________
>>Bitcoin-development mailing list
>>Bitcoin-development at lists.sourceforge.net
>>https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20130619/852f3ff4/attachment.html>

2023-06-07 15:03:40

- reply

📅 Original date posted:2013-06-19
📝 Original message:It's a problem if you work with iterators to deserialize the byte stream. Even failing that, it's just sloppy programming. What happens in the future when new fields are added to the version message? It's not a big deal to say that this protocol version has X number of fields, that (higher) protocol version message has X + N number of fields. Deterministic number of fields per protocol version is sensical and how Bitcoin has been for a long time.
And yes, it was a problem for me that caused a lot of confusion why this byte didn't exist in many version messages despite the standard saying it should and the code in bitcoind indicating it should. Nowhere was this written. It doesn't help other implementations to have an unclear behaviour that depends on some magic from one implementation.
________________________________
From: Mike Hearn <mike at plan99.net>
To: Turkey Breast <turkeybreast at yahoo.com>
Cc: "bitcoin-development at lists.sourceforge.net" <bitcoin-development at lists.sourceforge.net>
Sent: Wednesday, June 19, 2013 11:39 AM
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Missing fRelayTxes in version message
It has to be optional because old clients don't send it, obviously.
Why is this even an issue? There's no problem with variable length messages in any codebase that I'm aware of. Is this solving some actual problem?
On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 12:30 AM, Turkey Breast <turkeybreast at yahoo.com> wrote:
That's me. I never said to make all messages fixed length. I said to make a fixed number of fields per protocol. So given a protocol version number, you know the number of fields in a message. This is not only easier for parsing messages, but just good practice. I don't see why a 1 byte flag needs to be optional anyway.
>
>
>
>
>________________________________
> From: Mike Hearn <mike at plan99.net>
>To: Turkey Breast <turkeybreast at yahoo.com>
>Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development at lists.sourceforge.net>
>Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2013 9:48 PM
>Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Missing fRelayTxes in version message
>
>
>
>It's not a bug (although there was recently a change to make bitcoind/qt always send this field anyway).
>
>
>I don't know where Amir is going with BIP 60. Version messages have always been variable length. There's nothing inherent in the Bitcoin protocol that says all messages are fixed length, indeed, tx messages are allowed to have arbitrary data appended after them that gets relayed.
>
>
>
>On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 7:45 PM, Turkey Breast <turkeybreast at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>See this BIP. I'm not sure if this is a bug or what, but it would be good if messages always had a fixed number of fields per protocol version.
>>
>>
>>https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/BIP_0060#Code_Updates
>>
>>
>>This BIP details everything that needs to be done and proposes a protocol upgrade.
>>
>>------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>This SF.net email is sponsored by Windows:
>>
>>Build for Windows Store.
>>
>>http://p.sf.net/sfu/windows-dev2dev
>>_______________________________________________
>>Bitcoin-development mailing list
>>Bitcoin-development at lists.sourceforge.net
>>https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
>>
>>
>
>
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>This SF.net email is sponsored by Windows:
>
>Build for Windows Store.
>
>http://p.sf.net/sfu/windows-dev2dev
>_______________________________________________
>Bitcoin-development mailing list
>Bitcoin-development at lists.sourceforge.net
>https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20130619/1a0bb11c/attachment.html>

2023-06-07 15:03:39

- reply

📅 Original date posted:2013-06-18
📝 Original message:That's me. I never said to make all messages fixed length. I said to make a fixed number of fields per protocol. So given a protocol version number, you know the number of fields in a message. This is not only easier for parsing messages, but just good practice. I don't see why a 1 byte flag needs to be optional anyway.
________________________________
From: Mike Hearn <mike at plan99.net>
To: Turkey Breast <turkeybreast at yahoo.com>
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development at lists.sourceforge.net>
Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2013 9:48 PM
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Missing fRelayTxes in version message
It's not a bug (although there was recently a change to make bitcoind/qt always send this field anyway).
I don't know where Amir is going with BIP 60. Version messages have always been variable length. There's nothing inherent in the Bitcoin protocol that says all messages are fixed length, indeed, tx messages are allowed to have arbitrary data appended after them that gets relayed.
On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 7:45 PM, Turkey Breast <turkeybreast at yahoo.com> wrote:
See this BIP. I'm not sure if this is a bug or what, but it would be good if messages always had a fixed number of fields per protocol version.
>
>
>https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/BIP_0060#Code_Updates
>
>
>This BIP details everything that needs to be done and proposes a protocol upgrade.
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>This SF.net email is sponsored by Windows:
>
>Build for Windows Store.
>
>http://p.sf.net/sfu/windows-dev2dev
>_______________________________________________
>Bitcoin-development mailing list
>Bitcoin-development at lists.sourceforge.net
>https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20130618/55556c86/attachment.html>

2023-06-07 15:03:38

- reply

📅 Original date posted:2013-06-18
📝 Original message:See this BIP. I'm not sure if this is a bug or what, but it would be good if messages always had a fixed number of fields per protocol version.
https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/BIP_0060#Code_Updates
This BIP details everything that needs to be done and proposes a protocol upgrade.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20130618/4bb74b27/attachment.html>