Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9E4C586 for ; Mon, 24 Aug 2015 15:29:48 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-wi0-f178.google.com (mail-wi0-f178.google.com [209.85.212.178]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 289B0176 for ; Mon, 24 Aug 2015 15:29:48 +0000 (UTC) Received: by widdq5 with SMTP id dq5so75651765wid.0 for ; Mon, 24 Aug 2015 08:29:46 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to; bh=cio/TDjsx2SpU3M+JdWroLX3Yydf5gcGg3v/06UGKKs=; b=U8VFdMsRZJj+QrcXaTMcoxiWoLVzbf8QhkjrKRYww9UkXK3mZKrhOO09jXCUva0hgT 6FjbXcLDjYCpJNxVQ5vX0C8LHK6eHMQnYUocflMjjlqdkqfNaLXpU/4jbBzpGXt0N02+ AWvpNSkPotO9UDgEd7Q524ASI0GZTS9R93MEUh8wgwKSFRkS65PBu1fjAh08mSoiHgCo VCfyiRl75jckRFt9ZebX7mKMdTeSM0symmKsTsBqB+FRZxANJo02BCMo/oVm5UqZgH1O yWUuIae60p8W/K4H1y3WIs2vCM/XLDwHBMEY3/pZ8Luo+5mLSULgwwsMJ5fP+tHSg5G8 qPlA== X-Received: by 10.180.37.7 with SMTP id u7mr29282729wij.79.1440430186813; Mon, 24 Aug 2015 08:29:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from amethyst.visucore.com (dhcp-089-098-228-253.chello.nl. [89.98.228.253]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id k4sm16677903wix.19.2015.08.24.08.29.45 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=AES128-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 24 Aug 2015 08:29:45 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2015 17:29:57 +0200 From: "Wladimir J. van der Laan" To: Matt Corallo Message-ID: <20150824152955.GA6924@amethyst.visucore.com> References: <55D6AD19.10305@mattcorallo.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <55D6AD19.10305@mattcorallo.com> X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, FREEMAIL_FROM, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org Cc: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Revisiting NODE_BLOOM: Proposed BIP X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Development Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2015 15:29:48 -0000 > NODE_BLOOM is distinct from NODE_NETWORK, and it is legal to advertise > NODE_BLOOM but not NODE_NETWORK (eg for nodes running in pruned mode > which, nonetheless, provide filtered access to the data which they do have). But is this useful without having decided on a way to signal which blocks pruned nodes do have? It looks like the part between paranthesis is speculation and should be left to a future BIP. Wladimir