Received: from sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.193] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-2.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1SUjFY-0001qG-PU for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Wed, 16 May 2012 18:47:04 +0000 X-ACL-Warn: Received: from zinan.dashjr.org ([173.242.112.54]) by sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) id 1SUjFY-0005qq-0J for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Wed, 16 May 2012 18:47:04 +0000 Received: from ishibashi.localnet (unknown [97.96.85.141]) (Authenticated sender: luke-jr) by zinan.dashjr.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B5C9256055F; Wed, 16 May 2012 18:46:57 +0000 (UTC) From: "Luke-Jr" To: Jeff Garzik Date: Wed, 16 May 2012 18:46:49 +0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.13.7 (Linux/3.2.12-gentoo; KDE/4.8.1; x86_64; ; ) References: <201205161829.44967.luke@dashjr.org> In-Reply-To: X-PGP-Key-Fingerprint: E463 A93F 5F31 17EE DE6C 7316 BD02 9424 21F4 889F X-PGP-Key-ID: BD02942421F4889F X-PGP-Keyserver: hkp://pgp.mit.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <201205161846.50784.luke@dashjr.org> X-Spam-Score: -0.0 (/) X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net. See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details. -0.0 T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay domain X-Headers-End: 1SUjFY-0005qq-0J Cc: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] P2P feature discovery (was Re: BIP 33 - Stratized Nodes) X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 16 May 2012 18:47:04 -0000 On Wednesday, May 16, 2012 6:38:28 PM Jeff Garzik wrote: > On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 2:29 PM, Luke-Jr wrote: > > That assumes you already have a connection to the peer in question. > > As I understand it, the service bits are propagated as part of the > > address, so you can see at a glance which nodes you want to connect to > > for some special service. Passing a huge list along might be unwieldy > > (though it makes sense for protocol changes that don't add new > > services). > > If the peer list becomes too, um, stratified maybe that's a Big Hint > that said clients should be using another network entirely, and not > overloading bitcoin's P2P network for wholly unrelated tasks. The > bitcoin P2P network is not a general message transit network. > > Another argument against the proposal, IOW, if you ask me.... No, I meant the inverse. If only a small minority of nodes are stratified, the clients need some way to figure out which ones, without connecting to every node.