Skip to content
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

BIP159 updates #1768

Merged
merged 5 commits into from
Feb 26, 2025
Merged

BIP159 updates #1768

merged 5 commits into from
Feb 26, 2025

Conversation

jonatack
Copy link
Member

@jonatack jonatack commented Feb 14, 2025

A few clarifications following a discussion with BIP author Jonas Schnelli yesterday and then thanks to review feedback from both Jonas and Murch.

These are compatible with the reference implementation in the BIP and with the current implementation in Bitcoin Core.

It is worthwhile to read the discussion in reference implementation bitcoin/bitcoin#10387 (particularly bitcoin/bitcoin#10387 (comment)).

@jonatack
Copy link
Member Author

cc @jonasschnelli

@jonatack jonatack added Proposed BIP modification Pending acceptance This BIP modification requires sign-off by the champion of the BIP being modified labels Feb 17, 2025
@jonatack jonatack marked this pull request as ready for review February 17, 2025 17:19
@jonatack
Copy link
Member Author

Did another pass and seems ready for review.

@jonatack
Copy link
Member Author

Updated the second commit per review feedback: 1b17eea..b680873

@jonatack
Copy link
Member Author

(I might propose adding a changelog to this BIP if this moves forward.)

Copy link
Contributor

@murchandamus murchandamus left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Good clean-up on the text, but I think I understand the service signals differently than you. Given that NODE_NETWORK_LIMITED indicates being able to at least serve 288 blocks, it seems perfectly compatible with also signaling NODE_NETWORK.

@jonatack
Copy link
Member Author

Updated to take the feedback from @jonasschnelli and @murchandamus (thanks!) and it looks much better. Please let me know what you think.

Copy link
Contributor

@murchandamus murchandamus left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

ACK b3e6e24

Good improvement, one optional nit, if you feel like taking it.

e.g. that NODE_NETWORK is not set

See reference implementation

bitcoin/bitcoin#10387

and this comment in that pull

bitcoin/bitcoin#10387 (comment)
Not the same meaning, so not a purely editorial fixup, but I think "unwittingly"
expresses the intended meaning.
@jonatack
Copy link
Member Author

Thanks @jonasschnelli and @murchandamus for the second round of review. Took your suggestions, added a missing ) and removed an extra ) from my last push, and simplified the fingerprinting recommendation to benefit from the latest changes. Let me know what you think.

Copy link
Contributor

@murchandamus murchandamus left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

ACK 22f7f04

One optional elaboration

@jonasschnelli
Copy link
Contributor

ACK d44f70e

Copy link
Contributor

@murchandamus murchandamus left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM, thanks for working on this.

@murchandamus murchandamus merged commit cc81fde into bitcoin:master Feb 26, 2025
4 checks passed
@jonatack jonatack deleted the 2025-02-bip159 branch February 26, 2025 15:06
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Pending acceptance This BIP modification requires sign-off by the champion of the BIP being modified Proposed BIP modification
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants