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 ) 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 ; 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: References: <20140617072351.GA7205@savin> Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2014 08:20:26 +0200 Message-ID: From: Wladimir To: Jeff Garzik 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 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: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2014 06:20:34 -0000 On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 11:29 PM, Jeff Garzik 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