-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 5.5k
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
[WIP] clarify BIP152 sendcmpct message exchange #461
Conversation
# Upon receipt of a "sendcmpct" message with the first integer set to 0, the node SHOULD NOT announce new blocks by sending a cmpctblock message, but SHOULD announce new blocks by sending invs or headers, as defined by BIP130. | ||
# Upon receipt of a "sendcmpct" message with the second integer set to something other than 1, nodes MUST treat the peer as if they had not received the message (as it indicates the peer will provide an unexpected encoding in cmpctblock, and/or other, messages). This allows future versions to send duplicate sendcmpct messages with different versions as a part of a version handshake for future versions. | ||
# The second integer SHALL be interpreted as a little-endian version number. Nodes sending a sendcmpct message MUST currently set this value to 1. Upon receipt of a "sendcmpct" message with the second integer set to something other than 1, nodes MUST treat the peer as if they had not received the message (as it indicates the peer will provide an unexpected encoding in cmpctblock, and/or other, messages). This allows future versions to send duplicate sendcmpct messages with different versions as a part of a version handshake for future versions. | ||
# Upon receipt of a "sendcmpct" message with the first integer set to 1, if the node wishes to use high-bandwidth compact block mode, it MUST respond with a "sendcmpct" message with the first integer set to 1. Upon receipt of a "sendcmpct" message with the first integer set to 0, if the node wishes to use low-bandwidth compact block mode, it MUST respond with a "sendcmpct" message with the first integer set to 0. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This seems to imply, to me, that a node should wait for a sendcmpct message before sending its announce, which it should not.
# Upon receipt of a "sendcmpct" message with the second integer set to something other than 1, nodes MUST treat the peer as if they had not received the message (as it indicates the peer will provide an unexpected encoding in cmpctblock, and/or other, messages). This allows future versions to send duplicate sendcmpct messages with different versions as a part of a version handshake for future versions. | ||
# The second integer SHALL be interpreted as a little-endian version number. Nodes sending a sendcmpct message MUST currently set this value to 1. Upon receipt of a "sendcmpct" message with the second integer set to something other than 1, nodes MUST treat the peer as if they had not received the message (as it indicates the peer will provide an unexpected encoding in cmpctblock, and/or other, messages). This allows future versions to send duplicate sendcmpct messages with different versions as a part of a version handshake for future versions. | ||
# Upon receipt of a "sendcmpct" message with the first integer set to 1, if the node wishes to use high-bandwidth compact block mode, it MUST respond with a "sendcmpct" message with the first integer set to 1. Upon receipt of a "sendcmpct" message with the first integer set to 0, if the node wishes to use low-bandwidth compact block mode, it MUST respond with a "sendcmpct" message with the first integer set to 0. | ||
# If the node has sent *and* received "sendcmpct" with the first integer set to 1, the node SHOULD announce new blocks by sending a cmpctblock message. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This seems to imply, to me, that you have to send a sendcmpct message with a 1 in order to announce using cmpctblocks, which isnt true, you only need to receive one.
What's the status here? |
@TheBlueMatt - as discussed, this PR slightly clarifies the BIP 152 text: