BIP332: Stale Tip Relay

[pseudoramdom]

This BIP is a specification for a new an opt-in P2P message,staletip, for relaying recent stale tips between peers.
A proof-of-concept implementation is available at https://github.com/w0xlt/bitcoin/tree/staletip-v4.

Mailing list post - https://gnusha.org/pi/bitcoindev/d92f1615-368b-4406-b326-a1799c72a555n@googlegroups.com/
Discussion - https://groups.google.com/g/bitcoindev/c/AwOPNxF15mU

Feedback is welcome.

LLM Disclosure: LLMs were used to help develop the proposal’s initial outline and to rephrase portions of the draft. The proposal’s technical content was reviewed and finalized by the authors.

[edilmedeiros]

Thanks for submitting your proposal. Gave a round of review, some comments are about the technique itself, but others are more editorial to try to improve and clarify the specification.

[edilmedeiros]

This can be left to the reference implementation section.

[pseudoramdom]

The URL here is the temporary experimental featureid, not just a reference implementation link. BIP 434 requires an unassigned experimental feature to use a globally unique identifier, such as its repository URL. I’ll clarify that distinction and move the standalone implementation link to the Reference Implementation section.

For features published as a BIP, the featureid SHOULD be the assigned BIP number, eg "BIP434", or be based on the BIP number (eg, "BIP434v2" where the "v2" suffix covers versioning, or "BIP434.3" where the ".3" suffix covers part 3 of the BIP). For experimental features that do not (yet) have a BIP number assigned, some other unique identifier MUST be chosen, such as a URL to the repository where development is taking place, or the sha256 digest of some longer reference.

[edilmedeiros]

It's weird to expect an specification proposal might not get a number… Why not specify BIPxxx for now an update when a number is assigned, without the conditional?

[edilmedeiros]

Actually, this gets confusing here: the feature is called staletip everywhere, but the serialization in BIP434 featureid part of the message should be BIPxxx?

[pseudoramdom]

staletip is the descriptive feature name and P2P message command. It isn’t the serialized BIP 434 featureid. The experimental implementation currently uses the repository URL as its globally unique featureid, and the published specification will the BIP number. I’ll make that distinction explicit.

[edilmedeiros]

Since the feature is versioned, this slack is really needed? I mean, why not accept EXACTLY one byte with the two expected values?

[pseudoramdom]

Good point :). BIP 434’s versioned feature IDs give us a clean way to make future changes. I’ll update the specification to require one byte with value 0x00 or 0x01.

[edilmedeiros]

Can't this open a DoS vector?

[ajtowns]

DoS vectors for p2p are for processing time or memory/disk usage or amplification attacks where we receive a small amount of garbage data and then send a large amount of garbage data to other peers as a result. The bandwidth it takes to send the message isn't a DoS vector, because there's a million ways to send data to a p2p node, and you can't prevent all of them.

[edilmedeiros]

SHOULD request missing block data for the announced stale branch in the normal

Sounds that MAY would work better here. What if I already have that specific stale block, SHOULD I request it again?

[pseudoramdom]

What if I already have that specific stale block

Spec says "SHOULD request missing block data". If the node already has that stale block, its data is not missing and should not be requested again.

[edilmedeiros]

It assumes there's only one stale branch, which is probably not true in testnet and may even happen in mainnet. The design can deal with more than one competing branch?

[pseudoramdom]

Each staletip message describes one linear branch. If there are multiple competing branches, the sender will have to send a separate message for each one. I’ll clarify this in the spec.

[edilmedeiros]

Not sure this is necessary and potentially implies maintaining this code in the specification over time.

[pseudoramdom]

I think having the reconstruction algorithm in the specification is helpful. That said, it doesn’t need to be C++, so I’ve replaced it with pseudocode.

[0xB10C]

Thanks for opening this here. Plan to review!

[pseudoramdom]

Thanks for submitting your proposal. Gave a round of review, some comments are about the technique itself, but others are more editorial to try to improve and clarify the specification.

@edilmedeiros Thank you so much for taking the time to review.

---

Rebased and added a commit (d055be1) to address Edil's feedback.
The question of whether to reserve a one-byte BIP 324 message ID remains open.

[mzumsande]

what is the reason for choosing 1000 blocks when Bitcoin Core, as the most used implementation, would reject any header more than ~144 blocks old (GetAntiDoSWorkThreshold)? With the current implementation, it seems that these older headers would be sent out but would not be accepted by the peer by default. Or does the BIP intend to recommend that participating peers accept headers to their database within STALETIP_RECENT_WINDOW, basically recommending to lower the 144 block threshold?

[ajtowns]

Just a round number; more inspired by the average interval between stale blocks on mainnet (so that there's a decent chance a new node using this feature would see data fairly quickly) than anything else.

[mzumsande]

ok, but I find it not ideal to ask for stale headers and then immediately discard them because they are too old to satisfy GetAntiDoSWorkThreshold.

[pseudoramdom]

STALETIP_RECENT_WINDOW number is arbitrary. 1000 blocks gives monitoring nodes roughly seven days to discover staletip data.

With the current implementation, it seems that these older headers would be sent out but would not be accepted by the peer by default.

Good catch, this might've been an oversight in the PoC implementation. Staletip relay path should probably define a separate bounded acceptance policy.

[ajtowns]

ok, but I find it not ideal to ask for stale headers and then immediately discard them because they are too old to satisfy GetAntiDoSWorkThreshold.

Right, but that's a problem with the implementation, not the spec? (Beyond the spec noting the interaction to help implementers avoid pitfalls, anyway)

I think 48 hours / 288 blocks hours is likely enough for a stale tip to propagate to 99% of interested nodes just via extra-block-relay-only connections if only 1% of listening nodes support stale tip relay, and 24 hours / 144 blocks is likely enough if ~2.5% of listening nodes support the feature. Those numbers are worse if the extra-block-relay-only connections fail frequently due to addrman poisoning, or better if there are enough stale tip relay nodes that they form connected components in the p2p network. Also better if non-listening nodes are participating. So to me, that says changing this to recommend 144 wouldn't be overly concerning, but I'd still lean towards 1000 to maximise propagation chance to anyone interested.

def propogate(lnodes, support, blks):
    probes = blks*2 # 10min blks, 5min extra-b-r-o-conn
    have = [False]*int(lnodes*support)
    t = len(have)
    assert t > 1
    have[0] = True
    for _ in range(probes):
        for i in range(t): # each node makes a probe
            k = int(random.random() * lnodes) # who does i connect to?
            if k < t and (have[i] or have[k]): # staletip relay?
                have[i] = have[k] = True
    return sum(have)/t
    
sum(propogate(20000, 0.01, 144) for _ in range(20))/20
# 0.542 -- 54% of staletip relay nodes see the stale tip with 1% sat over 144 blocks
sum(propogate(20000, 0.01, 288) for _ in range(20))/20
# 0.9894999999999999 -- 99% of staletip relay nodes see the stale tip with 1% sat over 288 blocks
sum(propogate(20000, 0.025, 144) for _ in range(20))/20
# 0.9994999999999999 -- 99% of staletip relay nodes see the stale tip with 2.5% sat over 144 blocks
sum(propogate(20000, 0.003, 1000) for _ in range(20))/20
# 0.9991666666666668 -- 99% of staletip relay nodes see the stale tip with 0.3% sat over 1000 blocks

[murchandamus]

I was just thinking that in the context of the increased peer limit of Bitcoin Core, this could be even more reliable if blocks-only peers optionally participate in stale tip relay. Perhaps this BIP could make a recommendation whether stale tips should be announced on blocks-only connections or not.

[pseudoramdom]

Right, keeping 1000 blocks in the spec gives stale tips a better chance to propagate while adoption is low. Implementations can still apply stricter local limits.
I’ll add a note that implementations reusing their normal header-processing path should ensure its admission policy is compatible with its staletip recency window.

[ajtowns]

blocks-only peers optionally participate in stale tip relay

I don't think block-relay-only mode is documented in a BIP anywhere (treating it as a node configuration details rather than a standard), so it seems slightly weird to introduce it as a BIP-worthy concept here?

I think stale tip relay/announcements should be done on block-relay-only connections, because that allows the extra-block-relay-only connections to make the p2p graph dynamic for the purposes of this message, making it more likely to achieve wide distribution.

[pseudoramdom]

Yeah, that makes sense.
The BIP can remain connection-agnostic. I won’t add a normative rule about block-relay-only connections.
Implementations can still enable it on their extra block-relay-only connections they maintain, but I don’t think the feature should be restricted to those connections.

[danielabrozzoni]

This was a very good read :) I left a question and a couple of nits.

[murchandamus]

Thanks for the thorough work, this proposal was an excellent read and looks already very mature.

I’m assigning BIP332 to this proposal. Please add a README entry, incorporate the BIP number into the preamble and set the Assigned header to 2026-08-21.

[murchandamus]

Wouldn’t one of the interesting uses for this BIP be to map the many branches of testnet4?

[pseudoramdom]

Good point. I can see mapping competing branches on testnet4 being useful.
Do you think the BIP should avoid prescribing a difficulty threshold for testnet3 and testnet4 and leave it entirely to local policy? We could drop these two recommendations and rely on the general proof-of-work, rate-limiting, and resource-bound requirements instead.

[ajtowns]

Difficulty one blocks can be created at a rate of ~200/s per TH/s, so a map that includes those doesn't seem very useful, and likely opens you up to a disk filling attack: make your diff-1 alternative blocks contain 1MvB worth of txs that conflict with the main chain. They're only listed as MAY and SHOULD requirements, so you could still do this while complying with the bip, though.

[murchandamus]

I don’t have strong feelings about supporting Testnet3 and Testnet4. Especially Testnet3 seems obsolete to me, Forknet4 slightly less so, although my understanding is that it is of limited use. Forknet4 is largely immune to blockstorms, it just branches more. I was just asking because Testnet4 came to mind in the context, but I am not overly invested.

[murchandamus]

I was just thinking that in the context of the increased peer limit of Bitcoin Core, this could be even more reliable if blocks-only peers optionally participate in stale tip relay. Perhaps this BIP could make a recommendation whether stale tips should be announced on blocks-only connections or not.

[murchandamus]

@0xB10C, any others: did anyone want to do another round of review?

@pseudoramdom: What do you think about the status of this? Do you still have open planned work or are looking for input on this in some specific aspect?

[0xB10C]

Gave this a read and found everything I was going to mention (bitcoin/bitcoin#33266, and fingerprinting via stale blocks, which is already possible, see bitcoin/bitcoin#24571) already included. I don't have anything to add or change at the moment.

[pseudoramdom]

Gave this a read and found everything I was going to mention (bitcoin/bitcoin#33266, and fingerprinting via stale blocks, which is already possible, see bitcoin/bitcoin#24571) already included. I don't have anything to add or change at the moment.

Thanks for reviewing!

@pseudoramdom: What do you think about the status of this? Do you still have open planned work or are looking for input on this in some specific aspect?

Responded to some comments and made minor edits to address Daniela's feedback
I'm done with the changes for now. @murchandamus

[murchandamus]

Great, thanks for the quick turnaround. I gave the new edits a quick read, they look good to me. Let’s get this published, if anyone notices some minor improvements they can be follow-ups.