Hi Anthony, This is what I was implying in my last post (the reference to the unnecessary overload of message typing). However, if one imagines a sequence diagram for this communication it becomes obvious that all such messages are 100% redundant with verack.
e > On Aug 20, 2020, at 19:37, Anthony Towns via bitcoin-dev > <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > > 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 > > _______________________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev _______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
