1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
|
Received: from sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.194]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-2.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <laanwj@gmail.com>) id 1Wx9EY-0006IL-4l
for Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Wed, 18 Jun 2014 06:20:34 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
designates 209.85.223.179 as permitted sender)
client-ip=209.85.223.179; envelope-from=laanwj@gmail.com;
helo=mail-ie0-f179.google.com;
Received: from mail-ie0-f179.google.com ([209.85.223.179])
by sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1Wx9EW-0003QC-D9
for Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Wed, 18 Jun 2014 06:20:34 +0000
Received: by mail-ie0-f179.google.com with SMTP id tr6so342091ieb.10
for <Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Tue, 17 Jun 2014 23:20:26 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.50.4.102 with SMTP id j6mr1705285igj.42.1403072426422; Tue,
17 Jun 2014 23:20:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.64.60.195 with HTTP; Tue, 17 Jun 2014 23:20:26 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAJHLa0Mk5E4ubQ2MZcdrG3fAm5KAATKsSgxnN8VKN1W=uBU0Og@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20140617072351.GA7205@savin>
<CA+s+GJAgQAZzwgONbD==fYTsV9jWKCZ6+gTiwohUT_H5kT_MoA@mail.gmail.com>
<CAJHLa0Mk5E4ubQ2MZcdrG3fAm5KAATKsSgxnN8VKN1W=uBU0Og@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2014 08:20:26 +0200
Message-ID: <CA+s+GJB-PziMMYDJMFYX6vAu-FCfugeJrNe+n3aLokFcFvzvEA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Wladimir <laanwj@gmail.com>
To: Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@bitpay.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
X-Spam-Score: -1.6 (-)
X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net.
See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details.
-1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for
sender-domain
0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider
(laanwj[at]gmail.com)
-0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record
-0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from
author's domain
0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature,
not necessarily valid
-0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature
X-Headers-End: 1Wx9EW-0003QC-D9
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Proposal: allocate 8 service bits for
experimental use
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: <bitcoin-development.lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_name=bitcoin-development>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2014 06:20:34 -0000
On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 11:29 PM, Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@bitpay.com> wrote:
> I wrote a patch for string-based name extensions, circa 2011-2012. I
> agree that is preferable to unreadable bits, for reasons you cite.
>
> However, it was noted that extensions (or UUIDs etc.) would not be
> propagated around the network in "addr" messages, as service bits are.
Thanks for letting me know, I didn't remember your patch.
Ugh, yes, propagating all extensions in `addr` messages is not how I
imagined this to work.
But then there would need to be an alternative way to discover nodes
that offer a certain extension. Alas, this moves it from a
straightforward and common sense change to a significant change to the
protocol.
Wladimir
|
