BIP 310: Stratum protocol extensions #709

pull janbraiins wants to merge 2 commits into bitcoin:master from slushpool:stratum-extensions changing 1 files +285 −0

janbraiins commented at 8:20 am on August 1, 2018: contributor

Hi,

This proposal went formally through the mailing list: https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2018-May/015978.html without any further discussion. Currently, this extension has been implemented by multiple pools. I would like to kindly ask for BIP # assignment and have this merged into upstream bips.

Best regards,

Jan Capek
achow101 commented at 5:47 pm on August 1, 2018: member

As an aside, perhaps the stratum protocol itself should be specified in BIP documents as well so that people don’t have to go to other sites to learn about the stratum protocol itself before reading the extensions BIP. The Stratum protocol has BIPs 40 and 41 but there are no documents for those present in the repo.
janbraiins commented at 6:25 am on August 2, 2018: contributor

That is a good point, we can compile a stratum BIP from the spec that we published here: http://stratumprotocol.org/
luke-jr commented at 6:11 pm on August 9, 2018: member

Please use BIP number 310.

Also, while this does address backward compatibility to a limited degree, it should ideally be discussed in a dedicated section of the document. Ideally, even if you insist on breaking compatibility with the established (and technically superior) mining.capabilities for some reason, it would be nice to document that incompatibility there as well.
luke-jr added the label New BIP on Aug 9, 2018
luke-jr renamed this:
~~Import initial draft of stratum extension bip~~
BIP 310: Stratum protocol extensions
on Aug 9, 2018
janbraiins commented at 6:56 pm on August 9, 2018: contributor

On Thu, 09 Aug 2018 11:11:22 -0700 Luke Dashjr notifications@github.com wrote:

Please use BIP number 310.

Also, while this does address backward compatibility to a limited degree, it should ideally be discussed in a dedicated section of the document. Ideally, even if you insist on breaking compatibility with the established (and technically superior) mining.capabilities for some reason, it would be nice to document that incompatibility there as well.

Thank you for assigning it, I will try to document this, that is a good point.

– CEO Braiins Systems | Slushpool.com email: jan.capek@braiins.cz http://braiins.cz http://slushpool.com
Import initial draft of stratum extension bip b24e591711
janbraiins force-pushed on Aug 24, 2018
janbraiins commented at 1:22 pm on August 24, 2018: contributor

@luke-jr let me know if there is anything else that needs to be cleaned up.

in bip-0310.mediawiki:280 in d6de0c8652 outdated

275+
276+Currently, there is a similar protocol feature '''mining.capabilities''' that
277+was intended for various protocol extensions.  However, '''mining.configure'''
278+is incompatible with this feature as it requires a server response confirming
279+all accepted/negotatied extensions. The reason why we made it incompatible is
280+that '''mining.capabilities''' request has no associated response.

luke-jr commented at 2:41 pm on August 24, 2018:

It has no defined response, but it would have been trivial to add one…

bip 310 - add assigned number, ellaborate on mining.capabilities incompatibility 2b0d7d70e2
in bip-0310.mediawiki:2 in d6de0c8652 outdated
0@@ -0,0 +1,285 @@ 1+<pre> 2+ BIP: 0310
luke-jr commented at 2:42 pm on August 24, 2018:

Shouldn’t have a leading zero here
janbraiins force-pushed on Aug 27, 2018
luke-jr merged this on Sep 7, 2018
luke-jr closed this on Sep 7, 2018
janbraiins deleted the branch on Sep 11, 2018

Contributors
janbraiins achow101 luke-jr

Labels
New BIP