Received: from sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.194] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-1.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from <laanwj@gmail.com>) id 1XFhNX-0007PP-9a for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Fri, 08 Aug 2014 10:26:31 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com designates 209.85.213.173 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.213.173; envelope-from=laanwj@gmail.com; helo=mail-ig0-f173.google.com; Received: from mail-ig0-f173.google.com ([209.85.213.173]) by sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1XFhNW-0007ag-FR for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Fri, 08 Aug 2014 10:26:31 +0000 Received: by mail-ig0-f173.google.com with SMTP id h18so786760igc.12 for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>; Fri, 08 Aug 2014 03:26:25 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.42.38.137 with SMTP id c9mr1720708ice.94.1407493585177; Fri, 08 Aug 2014 03:26:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.64.27.228 with HTTP; Fri, 8 Aug 2014 03:26:25 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <CA+s+GJBUgi7XF4nyVEXqpZi4XYO86vTXMs40gzfu9tCdmp59tw@mail.gmail.com> References: <CAJHLa0Ok6s5xQcMSeLa69adLBXEaicuXqcg45eZrwYtVFbx-dA@mail.gmail.com> <CANEZrP2wYcxJhxRRa86Nm9ENtK2SA5VNG-L7f5pHb_W=Ajcj5Q@mail.gmail.com> <CA+s+GJD+9qpwFcVfHOCCsFYjmk7A0V=65vG-7jJ6D7jj4Pi_7g@mail.gmail.com> <CANEZrP245242JYDBBo72XVmKgEBO96QPjcJi8Jy2Dm_r90n1Bw@mail.gmail.com> <CA+s+GJBUgi7XF4nyVEXqpZi4XYO86vTXMs40gzfu9tCdmp59tw@mail.gmail.com> Date: Fri, 8 Aug 2014 12:26:25 +0200 Message-ID: <CA+s+GJDjSR3272LsSax-2V--x4_taoqrTMiDoXSEvuiS5-MBKw@mail.gmail.com> From: Wladimir <laanwj@gmail.com> To: Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net> 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: 1XFhNW-0007ag-FR Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net> Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] NODE_EXT_SERVICES and advertising related services 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: Fri, 08 Aug 2014 10:26:31 -0000 On Fri, Aug 8, 2014 at 12:15 PM, Wladimir <laanwj@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Aug 8, 2014 at 12:01 PM, Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net> wrote: >>> He wants to use it to advertise services that are not part of the P2P >>> protocol itself, but run on a different port. Reserving services bits >>> for those is not acceptable. >> >> >> Why not? Does the port matter much? > > Yes. The services bits are for advertising services on the P2P > network. That's not open for discussion. It also wouldn't work. A bit is not enough to find an external service except in the naive case where the advertised service would have a fixed port. Not even bitcoind has a fixed port. So there needs to be a mechanism to find how to connect to the 'external service'. This is provided by the proposed extension. It would in principle be possible to advertise an extra service bit *in addition to* this one, to make it easier to find through the addr mechanism. But it would be confusing and IMO an abuse of P2P service bits. Wladimir