> On Aug 18, 2020, at 11:25, Matt Corallo wrote:
>
> On 8/18/20 2:11 PM, Eric Voskuil wrote:
> - snip -
>>> Still, I think we're talking pedantics here, and not in a useful way.
>> Not to be pedantic, but I don’t know what that means.
>
> It means that part of the discussion is not useful, and
On 8/18/20 2:11 PM, Eric Voskuil wrote:
- snip -
Still, I think we're talking pedantics here, and not in a useful way.
Not to be pedantic, but I don’t know what that means.
It means that part of the discussion is not useful, and not worth bothering to go back and figure out what was
> On Aug 18, 2020, at 10:26, Matt Corallo wrote:
>
> There are several cases where a new message has been sent as a part of a
> negotiation without changing the protocol version.
Such as?
> You may chose to ignore that, but that doesn't mean that it isn't an
> understood and even relied
“Bitcoin protocol has always expected clients to ignore unknown messages”
This is not true. Bitcoin has long implemented version negotiation, which is
the opposite expectation. Libbitcoin’s p2p protocol implementation immediately
drops a peer that sends an invalid message according to the
There are several cases where a new message has been sent as a part of a negotiation without changing the protocol
version. You may chose to ignore that, but that doesn't mean that it isn't an understood and even relied upon feature of
the Bitcoin P2P protocol. If you wish to fail connections to
This sounds like a great idea!
Bitcoin is no longer a homogeneous network of one client - it is many, with different features implemented in each. The
Bitcoin protocol hasn't (fully) evolved to capture that reality. Initially the Bitcoin protocol had a simple numerical
version field, but that
