Re: [Bitcoin-development] Lock protocol version numbers

2011-11-05 Thread Mike Hearn
BitCoinJ already sets the subver field to its name and version. -- RSA(R) Conference 2012 Save $700 by Nov 18 Register now http://p.sf.net/sfu/rsa-sfdev2dev1___

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Lock protocol version numbers

2011-11-05 Thread Christian Decker
On BitDroid I stopped updating the protocol version at 31700 and set the string to be both Version and Client, just like BitcoinJ :-) On Sat, Nov 5, 2011 at 3:32 PM, Mike Hearn m...@plan99.net wrote: BitCoinJ already sets the subver field to its name and version.

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Lock protocol version numbers

2011-11-05 Thread Amir Taaki
From talking with Patrick Strateman (phantomcircuit), he suggested this idea (which I will elaborate more on in the BIP): User-agent strings are a good starting point, however they aren't easy for parsing so we'll make a small modification to them. We need a hierarchy from protocol, variant,

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Lock protocol version numbers

2011-11-05 Thread Christian Decker
Sorry for shooting this approach down, but I'm against it. User-agent strings are an extremely bad idea as it would lead developers to start making communication choices depending on the client type. User-Agents in HTTP are only useful if the clients (browsers) do not adhere to a well defined

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Lock protocol version numbers

2011-11-05 Thread Luke-Jr
On Saturday, November 05, 2011 12:17:58 PM Christian Decker wrote: Sorry for shooting this approach down, but I'm against it. User-agent strings are an extremely bad idea as it would lead developers to start making communication choices depending on the client type. This can be necessary in

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Lock protocol version numbers

2011-11-05 Thread Jordan Mack
If clients break the network protocol/do not comply properly with it, they should be disconnected and shunned. Hard love. We don't want any ambiguity in the protocol. However my feeling about the user-agent string is that it is a vanity item, but here we'd be enforcing a format that