From: Pieter Wuille <bitcoin-dev@wuille•net>
To: Anthony Towns <aj@erisian•com.au>
Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Refreshed BIP324
Date: Thu, 05 Jan 2023 22:06:29 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <gSxFQedPc72pTioi9vuxvLKpaRBsnKFL4gkPKPn2G-EJgz_2Y1pYQ7cHD5SnunyCaLln7UQEHIxnopqP74LlnK__Mf9BURbJW8B5MYTZvCU=@wuille.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Y3dBUXPhTskCx+Fu@erisian.com.au>
------- Original Message -------
On Friday, November 18th, 2022 at 3:24 AM, Anthony Towns <aj@erisian•com.au> wrote:
> > * etc
> > So this gives a uniform space which commands can be assigned from, and there is no strict need for thinking of the short-binary and long-alphabetic commands as distinct. In v2, some short ones would be treated as aliases for old long-alphabetic ones. But new commands could also just be introduced as short ones only (even in v1).
>
> Isn't that optimising for the wrong thing? Aren't the goals we want:
>
> 1) it should be easy to come up with a message identifier without
> accidently conflicting with someone else's proposal
>
> 2) commonly used messages on the wire should have a short encoding
> in order to save bandwidth
>
> Depending on how much the p2p protocol ossifies, which messages are
> "commonly used on the wire" might be expected to change; and picking an
> otherwise meaningless value from a set of 102 elements seems likely to
> produce conflicts...
Oh, yes. I meant this as an encoding scheme, not as a (replacement for) the negotiation/coordination mechanism. There could still be an initial assignment for 1-byte encodings, and/or an explicit mechanism to negotiate other assignment, and/or nothing at all for now.
I just thought it would be interesting to have a uniform encoding without explicit distinction between "short commands" and "long commands" at that layer.
But maybe none of this is worth it, as it's perhaps more complexity than the alternative, and the alternative already has a working implementation and written-up specification.
Cheers,
--
Pieter
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-01-05 22:06 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 22+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-10-08 12:59 Dhruv M
2022-10-26 16:39 ` Pieter Wuille
2022-10-27 7:28 ` Vasil Dimov
2022-11-03 17:53 ` Murch
2022-11-03 22:26 ` Jonas Schnelli
2022-11-08 3:20 ` Anthony Towns
2022-11-10 21:23 ` Pieter Wuille
2022-11-12 3:23 ` Pieter Wuille
2022-11-12 18:52 ` Yuval Kogman
2022-11-18 8:24 ` Anthony Towns
2023-01-05 22:06 ` Pieter Wuille [this message]
2023-01-05 23:12 ` Anthony Towns
2023-01-09 8:11 ` Anthony Towns
2023-02-16 17:43 ` Dhruv M
2023-02-17 15:51 ` Anthony Towns
2023-02-17 22:13 ` Pieter Wuille
2023-02-19 23:56 ` Anthony Towns
2023-02-20 15:22 ` Pieter Wuille
2023-02-21 16:03 ` Anthony Towns
2023-02-28 18:07 ` Dhruv M
2023-02-28 21:02 ` Erik Aronesty
2023-10-11 20:52 ` Tim Ruffing
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to='gSxFQedPc72pTioi9vuxvLKpaRBsnKFL4gkPKPn2G-EJgz_2Y1pYQ7cHD5SnunyCaLln7UQEHIxnopqP74LlnK__Mf9BURbJW8B5MYTZvCU=@wuille.net' \
--to=bitcoin-dev@wuille$(echo .)net \
--cc=aj@erisian$(echo .)com.au \
--cc=bitcoin-dev@lists$(echo .)linuxfoundation.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox