8000 Revert "Don't send 'sendaddrv2' to pre-70016 software" by maflcko · Pull Request #20800 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
[go: up one dir, main page]
More Web Proxy on the site http://driver.im/
Skip to content

Revert "Don't send 'sendaddrv2' to pre-70016 software" #20800

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Closed

Conversation

maflcko
Copy link
Member
@maflcko maflcko commented Dec 29, 2020

Now that other software projects can handle sendaddrv2 messages, either by explicitly allowing them or by ignoring unknown messages, the temporary workaround can be removed. See also the mailing list post explaining that addrv2 is not dependent on a p2p protocol version: https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2020-December/018301.html

Some references:

@maflcko
Copy link
Member Author
maflcko commented Dec 29, 2020

Please don't merge until the above mentioned software projects issues a release.

8000

@DrahtBot DrahtBot added the P2P label Dec 29, 2020
@ajtowns
Copy link
Contributor
ajtowns commented Dec 30, 2020

This saves one line of code and at best does nothing, but more likely introduces spurious incompatibilities with existing deployed software.

@maflcko
Copy link
Member Author
maflcko commented Dec 30, 2020

Keeping it will create spurious incompatibilities with to-be-deployed software that implements according to the BIP. If the goal is to keep this workaround permanently, it might be good to propose an update to the BIP first. I don't want to decide what the BIP should say, but I think that Bitcoin Core should generally follow the BIP specification.

@laanwj laanwj added this to the Future milestone Jan 2, 2021
@jnewbery
Copy link
Contributor
jnewbery commented Jan 3, 2021

I don't think there's any rush to do this. We can live with this exception to the BIP for a couple of years and then revert.

Please don't merge until the above mentioned software projects issues a release.

We should wait some time after they issue a release. There may be unupgraded nodes from those projects for some time. Probably not many, but we should avoid breaking compatibility with those unnecessarily.

@michaelfolkson
Copy link

I agree with greater conservatism (e.g. a couple of years) on when to revert.

If the goal is to keep this workaround permanently

The goal isn't for a permanent workaround, it is for a temporary workaround. But I agree this could be communicated temporarily on the BIP to avoid the problems with future implementations of the BIP you talk about @MarcoFalke.

@michaelfolkson
Copy link

But I agree this could be communicated temporarily on the BIP to avoid the problems with future implementations of the BIP you talk about @MarcoFalke.

If you think this is the right way to go I'm happy to open a PR on the BIP.

@sipa
Copy link
Member
sipa commented Jan 3, 2021

@MarcoFalke My thinking here was that it could also wait a few years, depending on network developments. As far as I can see, this doesn't make Bitcoin Core incompatible with the BIP - it's just choosing in some cases to not opt into an optional feature (based on a heuristic to guess that the other side doesn't understand it anyway). If clients on the network appear that want BIP155 but somehow don't want to increment the protocol version, that would be a good reason to revert this.

@maflcko
Copy link
Member Author
maflcko commented Jan 3, 2021

Ok, let's revisit in 2022 or so

@maflcko maflcko 769B closed this Jan 3, 2021
@maflcko maflcko deleted the 2012-netRevertSendaddrv2Workaround branch January 3, 2021 18:41
@bitcoin bitcoin locked as resolved and limited conversation to collaborators Aug 16, 2022
Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
Labels
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

7 participants
0