-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 3
protocol 1.6: minimal update to get broadcast_package out #6
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
base: master
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Changes from all commits
8e26c35
b774837
0466646
7b84d2a
9657730
a4f158c
e54c0e4
b269a8f
919df4f
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
| Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
|---|---|---|
|
|
@@ -2,7 +2,7 @@ | |
| Protocol Changes | ||
| ================ | ||
|
|
||
| This documents lists changes made by protocol version. | ||
| This document lists changes made by protocol version. | ||
|
|
||
| Version 1.0 | ||
| =========== | ||
|
|
@@ -175,3 +175,44 @@ New methods | |
| ----------- | ||
|
|
||
| * :func:`blockchain.name.get_value_proof` to resolve a name (with proof). Name index coins (e.g. Namecoin) only. | ||
|
|
||
|
|
||
| Version 1.5 | ||
| =========== | ||
|
|
||
| (this version number was skipped, no corresponding protocol is defined) | ||
|
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Note that I skipped 1.5.x as Fulcrum and https://github.com/cculianu/electrum-cash-protocol uses these version numbers. By design of From a quick read of "electrum-cash-protocol", I think all the changes in the interim versions are backwards compatible. So maybe this is all ~fine... Nevertheless, the situation is unfortunate. |
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
| .. _version 1.6: | ||
|
|
||
| Version 1.6 | ||
| =========== | ||
|
|
||
| Changes | ||
| ------- | ||
|
|
||
| * Breaking change for the version negotiation: we now mandate that | ||
| the :func:`server.version` message must be the first message sent. | ||
| That is, version negotiation must happen before any other messages. | ||
| * Also for :func:`server.version`, the server must tolerate and ignore | ||
| extraneous arguments, to allow for extensions in future protocol versions. | ||
| * The status of a scripthash has its definition tightened in a | ||
| backwards-compatible way: mempool txs now have a canonical ordering | ||
| defined for the calculation (previously their order was undefined). | ||
| * :func:`blockchain.scripthash.get_mempool` previously did not define | ||
| an order for mempool transactions. We now mandate a specific ordering. | ||
| * Optional *mode* argument added to :func:`blockchain.estimatefee`. | ||
| * :func:`blockchain.block.headers` now returns headers as a list, | ||
| instead of a single concatenated hex string. | ||
|
|
||
| New methods | ||
| ----------- | ||
|
|
||
| * :func:`blockchain.transaction.broadcast_package` to broadcast a package of transactions (submitpackage). | ||
| * :func:`mempool.get_info` to get more detailed and general relayfee info. | ||
|
|
||
| Removed methods | ||
| --------------- | ||
|
|
||
| * :func:`blockchain.relayfee` is removed. The `minrelaytxfee` field | ||
| of the new :func:`mempool.get_info` RPC is a direct replacement. | ||
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.
Note that the byteorder used for the sorting is not the human-readable txid byteorder but the network one.
I chose this because it fits the existing internals of electrumx much nicer.
However in cculianu/electrum-cash-protocol#5 (comment) @cculianu expressed frustration about this choice.
I guess I don't mind either way though.
Any strong opinions?
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.
I appreciate your asking others for feedback on this.
Just to be annoying -- I'll smartly say that it can be argued the "network" order is only useful if you speak the p2p protocol. Otherwise it can be argued the true network order is the RPC order. :P
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.
Network byteorder makes sense to me for such an internal behavior, IMO. But, the most important thing is that it's well defined.
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.
I added a detailed example in 919df4f, to try to avoid any misunderstanding.