< sipa>
amiti: i think that's fair... i also don't really know what the issue would be with a sendaddrtypes message with a bitvector of bip155 network types for example (apart from not wanting to deal with that too right now)
< sipa>
aj: i think ariard is trying to point out that bip37/bip60 only talk about *announcing* transactions, not sending (possibly unannounced) transactions
< ariard>
aj: right but imo current bip60 semantic isn't clear with what the sender is allowed to do
< sipa>
if you're going by reading the spec by the letter... what does bip60"s fRelay flag even mean for a client that chooses not.to implement bip37?
< aj>
ariard: I run a -blocksonly node. You run a bip60 compliant node. I tell you fRelay=false. You don't send me any txes. You told me fRelay=true. Therefore I can send you a tx, without violating bip60.
< ariard>
aj: my point was bip37 original scope was unclear if it concerns only inv(tx) or any tx-related message, bip338 has the merit to clarify
< bitcoin-git>
[bitcoin] luke-jr opened pull request #21399: Genericide BIP9 in variable/type names and comments (master...vbits_rename) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/21399
2021-03-08
< bitcoin-git>
[bitcoin] achow101 opened pull request #21392: Implement BIP 8 based Speedy Trial activation (master...bip8-speedy-trial) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/21392
< bitcoin-git>
[bitcoin] ajtowns opened pull request #21377: Speedy trial support for versionbits (master...202103-bip9-speedy-trial-support) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/21377
2021-03-04
< achow101>
andytoshi: I've pushed the updated tests to my bips pr too
< andytoshi>
achow101: in BIP174, the test vector "PSBT with unknown types in the inputs" describes an input which has keytype 0x0f and key 0102030405060708. this is a valid PSBT
< sipa>
so i guess we could list BIP60 as implemented, actually
< MarcoFalke>
Bitcoin Core implements BIP60, but doesn't require peers to implement it. (Like any other optional BIP)
< ariard>
even the original bip37 is really unclear if fRelay semantic is to disable tx-relay or just tx-announcement
< sdaftuar>
sipa: but we're compatible with bip60 peers, and i think we now expect our peers to always read our fRelay flag if its' set to false, right?
< luke-jr>
it doesn't require breakign non-BIP60 peers
< sipa>
luke-jr: BIP60 is about predictably-sized version messages, not just the fRelay flag
< sipa>
it'd probably not be a bad idea to have bip32 derivation in the test framework
2021-02-26
< michaelfolkson>
"I like a hidden option in Core which is always there from day one, which is lot=true or taproot-bip8-lot-true or something that would change lockinontimeout to true and also change the default user agent string so you can tell people are running it. That’s good because by the time 6 months comes almost everyone has upgraded anyway, they’ve just got to change their config." (From the Sydney Socratic)
< sipa>
you may mean bip147
< sipa_>
bip62 is not consensus
< shesek>
(NULLDUMMY being validness rather than standardness as of bip62)
2021-02-22
< bitcoin-git>
[gui] MarcoFalke merged pull request #206: Display fRelayTxes and bip152_highbandwidth_{to, from} in peer details (master...add-fields-to-peer-details) https://github.com/bitcoin-core/gui/pull/206
2021-02-20
< wumpus>
i think what i need is a way to generate a *derived xpub* for a custom path in the wallet, i can do this with external tooling (e.g. darosior's bip32 python module), but afaik not from bitcoin core itself?
2021-02-17
< jb55>
I don't even think recommending bip39 support to 'newbies' would be a good idea. ideally there would be an easy way to connect a hardware wallet and get descriptors that way vs bip39 on your computer
< sipa>
there are a few things that can be worked on towards supporting that, like descriptor export, getting descriptor wallets in general less experimental, and things like bip39 support in descriptors directly
< sipa>
there is an issue for BIP39 support in descriptors somewhere
2021-02-13
< bitcoin-git>
bitcoin/master b08cbd0 Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #21028: doc/bips: Add BIPs 43, 44, 49, and 84
< bitcoin-git>
bitcoin/master c943326 Luke Dashjr: doc/bips: Add BIPs 43, 44, 49, and 84
< sipa>
well, because multi doesn't exist in bip342 (no OP_CHECKMULTISIG due to not batch verifiable)
2021-02-10
< bitcoin-git>
[bitcoin] danben opened pull request #21144: test: convert feature_bip_sequence.py to use MiniWallet (master...test-feature-bip68-sequence-without-wallet) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/21144
2021-02-09
< bioverse>
I have a nano ledger s with some bitcoin. I have the 24 words and wallet in a safe place. I went to https://iancoleman.io/bip39/ using a Ubuntu live from USB. I put the 24 mnemonic words and could not find any bitcoin address ever used. I freaked. I thought. Oh my god! I ordered a second brand new nano ledger s. Put the 24 words, using ledger live in a brand new laptop and my coins were there in the brand new ledger nano s. I am safe. But I have
2021-02-05
< bitcoin-git>
bitcoin/master e1e6714 Jon Atack: doc: refer to BIPs 339/155 in feature negotiation
< bitcoin-git>
bitcoin/master 3931732 Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #20646: doc: refer to BIPs 339/155 in feature negotiation
< bitcoin-git>
[bitcoin] laanwj merged pull request #20646: doc: refer to BIPs 339/155 in feature negotiation (master...signet-keep-post-verack-sendaddrv2-peers) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/20646
< bitcoin-git>
[bitcoin] jonatack reopened pull request #20646: doc: refer to BIPs 339/155 in feature negotiation (master...signet-keep-post-verack-sendaddrv2-peers) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/20646
< bitcoin-git>
[bitcoin] jonatack closed pull request #20646: doc: refer to BIPs 339/155 in feature negotiation (master...signet-keep-post-verack-sendaddrv2-peers) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/20646
< dr_orlovsky>
so BIP43-type new purpose value for P2TR will be a good solution in this respect as well?
< sipa>
i guess that means this whole point is moot, and we should probably have a deep look at proving security of ECDSA and Schnorr signatures of linearly related keys (as those created by P2C-tweaking or BIP32 derivation result)
< sipa>
yeah, you'll probably want a separate bip32 path for P2TR outputs; but that has nothing to do with ECDSA/Schnorr; you just don't want to reuse the same keys
< sipa>
i don't know if that needs a standard like BIP43 - perhaps it helps
< nickler>
luke-jr: what are the relevant PRs and issues? The two from aj to the BIP8 and your #19573?
< sdaftuar>
sipa: whether bips are the right place or not is unclear to me, but i think communicating relay policies like this so that 3rd party wallets know what behavior to aim for is helpful. in the case of bip125, my hesitation towards amending or redrafting is that we should fix the implementation in other ways anyway
< sipa>
if there really is a discrepancy between bip125 and what bitcoin core implements, it could be mentioned in doc/bips.md
< sipa>
i don't think these things belong in BIPs
2021-01-20
< pinheadmz>
is BIP125 (RBF) accurate with the implementation? Specifically, is it the absolute fees that are compared between replaces and replacing tx? or the fee rate?
< sdaftuar>
sipa: my understanding as well that there are no BIPs on it
< sipa>
i don't think it's unreasonable to recommend not relaying addresses to disabletx peers; so far addr relay is completely local policy anyway with no BIPs discussing it at all afaik
< jnewbery>
sdaftuar: do you have any further thoughts about what a future addr relay negotiation method would look like? I know you were pushing for something similar with BIP155
< sdaftuar>
but to do all that, we need to give nodes a way to know that an inbound peer is a block-relay-only peer. currently block-relay-only peers use the fRelay flag from BIP37 to instruct their peer they don't want transactions
< sdaftuar>
but BIP37 allows for transaction relay to resume with a FILTERCLEAR message
2021-01-10
< luke-jr>
bips.md?
< sipa>
sdaftuar_: also added a mention of BIP339 in the release notes
2021-01-04
< vasild>
but I failed to verify the callers of the constructor CSubNet(CNetAddr&) which used to create one-host-subnet before and would also "work" for torv2 addresses (in the code before bip155) by matching a single address
< vasild>
jonatack: when I extended CNetAddr to support longer-than-16-bytes addresses (as part of bip155) I also changed CSubNet to only handle ipv4 and ipv6 addresses - because it contains char netmask[16]; it makes no sense to apply it to e.g. 32 byte torv3 address
< bitcoin-git>
[bitcoin] MarcoFalke merged pull request #20189: test: Switch to BIP341's suggested scheme for outputs without script (master...202010_taproot_std_noscript) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/20189
< bitcoin-git>
bitcoin/master 812baaa Pieter Wuille: Switch to BIP341's suggested scheme for outputs without script
< bitcoin-git>
bitcoin/master cc592a8 MarcoFalke: Merge #20189: test: Switch to BIP341's suggested scheme for outputs withou...
2020-12-16
< jnewbery>
If you consider BIP37 and optional standard, then it's not really a violation of the protocol to send tx INVs after receiving a version with fRelay = false
< vasild>
eventually, maybe we would update bip155 to mandate the i2p addr size is allowed to be either 32 or 35 bytes
< vasild>
sipa: wumpus: wrt sending sendaddrv2 and the difference between the code and the BIP, I opened https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/1043 to change the BIP.
2020-12-05
< pinheadmz>
re: coordination though - BIPs are good places to pick service bits, etc at the community level - thats not really "bitcoin core deciding:
< pinheadmz>
i see yeah reading up the chatter on bip155 PR as well...
< wumpus>
... even less interest and we might as well puglish BIPs directly into the arctic code vault
< jonasschnelli>
It might lead to more reluctant testing and lesser interest to read BIPs more carefully
< jonasschnelli>
<wumpus> my first public draft was apparently june 1, 2018, I posted it to the mailing list feb 18, 2019 (there we no replies at all), I created the PR for the BIPs repository on feb 27, 2019, it was merged jul 23, 2019. Vasild picked up the implementation april this year, and quite quickly had a working implementation (though some other detailed were still ironed out). [...]
< wumpus>
but it's too frustrating for me personally and I don't think I'll be working on BIPs again
< wumpus>
my first public draft was apparently june 1, 2018, I posted it to the mailing list feb 18, 2019 (there we no replies at all), I created the PR for the BIPs repository on feb 27, 2019, it was merged jul 23, 2019. Vasild picked up the implementation april this year, and quite quickly had a working implementation (though some other detailed were still ironed out). It was discussed in
2020-12-03
< luke-jr>
until we switch to BIP324
< luke-jr>
(we can just add new features only within the context of BIP324)
< luke-jr>
as long as we ensure they can't continue their silliness into BIP324, at least it has an end date?
< jonasschnelli>
BIP324 is probably different since we want to get disconnected when the handshake is not supported
< jonasschnelli>
Its not even messages in BIP324,.. its the handshake that is headerless
< * sipa>
points at BIP324
< luke-jr>
IANA and BIPs aren't that different
< luke-jr>
sdaftuar: we also have no authority to impose BIP155 on them anyway
< sdaftuar>
i am not sure an updated version of bip155 was ever sent to the mailing list describing that the version bump was being dropped. so it's hard to blame them, imo, other than for a long-running misunderstanding of how we think unknown messaegs should be treated
< sdaftuar>
what's the status of sendaddrv2/bip155, there was a report that it caused other peers to disconnect us i think?
2020-12-01
< jnewbery>
vasild: your suggested change to BIP155 isn't what Bitcoin Core is doing. It sends the message after receiving a version message
< vasild>
maybe bip155 should be corrected: "sendaddrv2 SHOULD be sent after receiving the verack message" s/receiving/sending/
< sipa>
i'm happy we got bip154 in 0.21, but this isn't the time to change it anymore...
< jonatack>
michaelfolkson: when reviewing, sometimes running them for less than a minute finds things, e.g. was the case for the BIP324 implementation
< S3RK>
question about fuzzing. we use regtest chain params, but in corups for src/test/fuzz/descriptor_parse.cpp I see xprv keys. As a result fuzzing don't cover code paths with valid keys for bip32 decriptors. I tried to add initial seeds with tprv, but fuzzer doesn't detect any new edges covered. What do I miss?
2020-11-03
< jonasschnelli>
I haven't seen BIP324 discussion about the missing backward secrecy of the current rekeying approach.
< sipa>
as long as we don't worry about secrecy in the other direction (which the current bip324 writeup doesn't, afaik), i think this is very much preferable
< jonasschnelli>
I wanted to ask about BIP324's rekeying
< gribble>
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/18242 | Add BIP324 encrypted p2p transport de-/serializer (only used in tests) by jonasschnelli · Pull Request #18242 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
< S3RK>
question about fuzzing. we use regtest chain params, but in corups for src/test/fuzz/descriptor_parse.cpp I see xprv keys. As a result fuzzing don't cover code paths with valid keys for bip32 decriptors. I tried to add initial seeds with tprv, but fuzzer doesn't detect any new edges covered. What do I miss?
< sipa>
bip322 proves the ability to spend coins sent to a particular bitcoin address; a lightning equivalent sounds like it would need a lightning-specific solution
2020-10-19
< bitcoin-git>
[bitcoin] sipa opened pull request #20189: Switch to BIP341's suggested scheme for outputs without script (master...202010_taproot_std_noscript) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/20189
< sipa>
there is one context where we actually treat someone with a private key as an attacker in BIP340, and it's a rather unusual requirement: nobody (even those with private keys) should be able to construct a signature for which the single-sig validation and batch-validation algorithm produce a different result (with more than negligible probability)
< phantomcircuit>
sipa, yeah i understand now, i was confused by the bip340 language about malleability
< sipa>
phantomcircuit: to be clear, the bip340 signing algorithm is deterministic if no auxiliary randomness is used
< bitcoin-git>
bitcoin/master 79f3d9b Pieter Wuille: Mention BIP155 in doc/bips.md
2020-10-11
< ja>
luke-jr: when would an ack be necessary for marking 'obsolete'? i thought it would be analogous to 'final' which you seem to wait for an explicit ack for here: https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/926
< bitcoin-git>
[bitcoin] fanquake merged pull request #19954: Complete the BIP155 implementation and upgrade to TORv3 (master...torv3) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/19954
2020-10-10
< ariard>
vasild: I'm still not understanding how a BIP155 node is supposed to discover the list of network IDs supported by its BIP155-peers ?
2020-10-09
< sipa>
(and the usage in bip152 is restricted to 16-bit numbers, which obviously won't have any problems)
2020-10-08
< sipa>
i guess we overlooked that in bip152, where it's also not used as a size, but restricted to pretty small numbers
< sipa>
it is as BIP42 predicted
< jonatack>
to summarize, if I may: before feature freeze in one week, please review 19953 (BIPs 340-342), 19954 (tor v3), 19988 (tx relay logic), and 19077 (sqlite wallet)
2020-10-03
< bitcoin-git>
[bitcoin] robot-dreams opened pull request #20074: test: p2p_blockfilters tests for BIP157 config args (master...bip157-blockfilters-tests) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/20074
< wumpus>
the higher level question would be 'should AddrMan be entirely disabled in some cases', we had some related discussion wrt. that for BIP155 for making it possible for nodes to signal that they don't take part in address gossip
< sipa>
wumpus: also, ack bip155 changes, as those need to be stable before 0.21 if we want it :)
< vasild>
I agree it is out of scope, but I also think "I participate in gossip" is out of scope for bip155, if we consider that its purpose is to support larger than 16 byte addresses
< wumpus>
things like that were proposed before, though never in the for of a BIP afaik, but I think that's out of scope of BIP155
< vasild>
Wrt the next bip155/torv3 PR, assuming #19845 gets merged - #19031 has two more commits "net: CAddress & CAddrMan: (un)serialize as ADDRv2" (+193/-15) and "net: advertise support for ADDRv2 via new message" (+129/-8). Then we will have done BIP155 - will gossip torv3/i2p/cjdns addresses if we receive them (even though we may not be able to make use of them yet). After that we need one more change
< sipa>
i wonder how much of a bandwidth savings BIP155 will be
< wumpus>
phantomcircuit: that's not relevant here, we don't do DNS lookups for bitcoin nodes, and in any case, how a DNS returns is separate from how they're gossiped (which is all that BIP155 is about)
< sipa>
BIP155 makes it sound like (a), at least for TORv2
< sipa>
vasild: the way i see it, the P2P is just lagging behind a bit due to no BIP155, but we can easily circumvent that now ;)
< sipa>
BIP155 supports up to 512 bytes addresses, but clients will ignore unknown networks/lengths
2020-09-09
< ariard>
jonasschnelli: just replied on bip324, AFAICT real-or-random and I favor MACing the length a la noise, even if as Lloyd is pointing we don't a concrete exploitation of it
2020-09-08
< yanmaani>
I know, but is there any research being done? Like on BIPs or stuff? I know about utreexo
< sipa>
though they were an essential part of BIP37
< sipa>
aj: i have a branch where it's half done, but i got preempted by bip340/taproot stuff
< jonatack>
quick reminder to review the bip155 and bip324 implementation PRs
< gmaxwell>
https://github.com/bitcoin-core/secp256k1/pull/558 looks ready-ish to merge, so if anyone wanted to review ack this updated version that reflects the latest BIP340 changes (even R), it's time!
< sipa>
kallewoof: fwiw, the powLimit in the signet PR doesn't exactly match the difficulty as specified in BIP325 (the digits after 00002adc28 should be zeroes)
2020-08-27
< sipa>
right, this is not about computing our onion address, but to convert between the bip155 encoding and onion addresses
< jonatack>
I think BIP155 addrv2 is a priority, according to vasild the next steps should be smaller and easier
< ariard>
sipa: what was llfourn main proposal of change for bip324? He didn't propose to MAC the length field, so no BIP change
< gribble>
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/18242 | Add BIP324 encrypted p2p transport de-/serializer (only used in tests) by jonasschnelli · Pull Request #18242 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
< jonatack>
BIP324 v2 p2p encrypted message transport protocol: right after the last p2p meeting, jonasschnelli rebased and updated #18242 (changes only used in tests for now) and I've begun re-reviewing it along with the BIP, which has some open questions.
< jonatack>
BIP325 signet: #18267 has been through a few more rounds of review and seems to be getting close, with recent review by fjahr, pinheadz, MarcoFalke, instagibbs, and myself
< jonatack>
BIP155 addrv2: #19628 has been receiving review from sipa, elichai, ryanofsky, kallewoof, sipsorceryand myself, and now has 4 ACKs; vasild is deferring further (minor) changes to the PR in order to preserve existing review, but there's no reason to not review it
< jonatack>
My prios were BIP155, BIP324, and BIP325 implementation PRs, and they seem to be moving forward.
< vasild>
jonatack: troygiorshev: yes, the BIP155 sendaddrv2 can come any time, but we try to do it early so that when the peer is about to advertise his own address to us, he has the option to send us addrv2 - would be important if his address is torv3 because he wouldn't be able to advertise it to us with addr(v1)
< ariard>
sdaftuar: I think that's good it was unclear between matt and I on bip339 implemn in rust-bitcoin about why 339 bumps both protocol version and wtxid-relay
< jonatack>
vasild: i think it's fine to define one's own list of important PRs to review. e.g. longer term for me would be: BIP155/addrv2, BIP324, BIPs340-342, BIP325
< dongcarl>
jonatack: do you have link to bip324 discussion?
< jonatack>
i was then asked by a few devs to consider picking up bip324 implementation
2020-08-06
< gribble>
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/18242 | Add BIP324 encrypted p2p transport de-/serializer (only used in tests) by jonasschnelli · Pull Request #18242 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
< gribble>
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/18242 | Add BIP324 encrypted p2p transport de-/serializer (only used in tests) by jonasschnelli · Pull Request #18242 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
2020-08-03
< sipa>
warren: BIP324 will replace BIP151
< warren>
jonasschnelli: hey. Curious whatever happened to BIP150 and 151. Did that end up getting rolled into a replacement BIP?
2020-07-31
< bitcoin-git>
bitcoin/master d362f19 Pieter Wuille: doc: list support for BIP 339 in doc/bips.md
2020-07-29
< sipa>
the only exceptions are (1) segwit, which introduced a p2p change along with a consensus change and (2) bip133 feefilter
2020-07-27
< vasild>
but I gather "varint" in BIPs may be used to denote what the source code calls compactsize
< vasild>
both varint and compactsize are mentioned in some BIPs
< vasild>
jonasschnelli: luke-jr: sipa: wumpus: what do you think, (s/VARINT/CompactSize/ in BIP155)?
< vasild>
Anyway, given that compact size is used in p2p and not varint, I suggest that we change the spec to say "compactsize" instead of "varint" with some clarification like "For the purposes of this section, CompactSize refers to the variable-length integer encoding used acros..." (from bip152) and also change the code to use compactsize instead of varint (the code is in
< vasild>
and "compactsize" is mentioned in 6 BIPs
< vasild>
s/8 occurrences/mentioned in 8 BIPs/
< sipa>
for BIP152 there was initially an intention to use varint, but it was changed to compactsize to simplify specification
< vasild>
Or, well, if in other specs the word "VARINT" is used to mean "compactsize", then should the BIP155 C++ source code use compactsize?
< vasild>
Ok, so neither one of varint or compactsize is defined in BIPs, but compact size is already used in other places in the p2p protocol whereas varint is not.
< vasild>
BIP155 says:
< sipa>
vasild: not in any BIPs afaik; things that existed in the protocol before the BIPs process existed as generally just taken as gospel
< achow101>
2020-06-19.log:16:10 < bsm117532> #proposedwalletmeetingtopic descriptor specification for watch-only wallets, and repeated payments without address use via BIP32 paths
< sipa>
descriptor checksums have a range of 2^40, so somewhat better than bip32 fingerprints (which are only 2^32)
< shesek>
would it make sense to invent one? this could also use a `/` separator like bip32 key origins, though a different character might be better because this doesn't have multiple levels of nesting like key origins
< sipa>
(i kind of think that using fingerprints for bip32 was a bad idea too... they're too small to guarantee no collisions)
< shesek>
is there a customary notation for referring to the nth script of a descriptor identified by its checksum, akin to <bip32-fingerprint>/<index>?
2020-06-19
< bsm117532>
#proposedwalletmeetingtopic descriptor specification for watch-only wallets, and repeated payments without address use via BIP32 paths
2020-06-16
< wumpus>
but all new repositories are created under bitcoin-core, at some point, if enough things split off from the main codebase, at some point maybe only the consensus code (and bips) will be left under bitcoin
2020-06-12
< jamesob>
This issue of the message handling thread being potentially blocked by indexing (BIP157/158) that jnewbery raised is disconcerting, and separating out the indexing stuff seems more or less in line with the spirit of the process separation work.
< shesek>
is there a customary notation for referring to the nth script of a descriptor identified by its checksum? something like <checksum>/<index>, akin to <bip32-fingerprint>/<index>?
< real_or_random>
we (the BIPauthors) feel it's in a good state, I think otherwise sipa wouldn't bring this up
< elichai2>
I think the big "political" question in terms of merging is if anyone believes that BIP340 doesn't have a good chance of landing in bitcoin core
< nickler>
Afaik we've addressed all comments on the BIPS on the mailing list in some form of another
< elichai2>
I'd like to review the new keypair direction but I do hope that BIP340 will actually end up in bitcoin in the end so I think it's ok to move toward merging schnorr to libsecp
< sipa>
so with the prospect of having BIP340-342 one day merged, there will need to be a time to merge BIP340 support in libsecp256k1
< sipa>
shower thought: are pcap files easy? if so, maybe it's useful post-BIP324 to permit dumping the decrypted stream in pcap format
< MarcoFalke>
For logging, one could disable bip324
< jonasschnelli>
would ne no longer fun for post BIP324 connections
< troygiorshev>
i'm personally a huge fan of BIP324 and AltNet and related, so I'
2020-06-02
< sipa>
with a million keys the bip158 filter won't help
< sipa>
phantomcircuit: i think bip158 was designed for much smaller sets of keys, yes
< achow101>
i'm gonna need to brush up on bip158 first
< phantomcircuit>
"Empirical analysis also shows that was chosen as these parameters minimize the bandwidth utilized, considering both the expected number of blocks downloaded due to false positives and the size of the filters themselves." - BIP158
< aj>
yeah, i was thinking of making it so bip35 wouldn't let you see stuff that hadn't made it into the bloom filter, but seems too complicated, esp if we think bip35 is only for trusted-ish peers
< sipa>
you have to explicitly enable bip37, or whitelist the peer
< aj>
sipa: why not do bip35 via bloom as well?
< sipa>
aj: so WDYT about relay pool 2 minutes, bloom filter per peer for last (whatever can be relayed in 2 minutes) transactions, things can be requested if they're in the bloom filter OR in mempool and older than 2 minutes OR older than the last BIP35 response; BIP35 responses don't go into the bloom filter
2020-05-29
< gribble>
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/18242 | Add BIP324 encrypted p2p transport de-/serializer (only used in tests) by jonasschnelli · Pull Request #18242 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
< sipa>
it's why we think we need an upgrade mechanism in BIP342
< jonasschnelli>
sipa: do you think it could have implications for v2/BIP342?