To: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>
References: <55D6AD19.10305@mattcorallo.com>
	<20150824152955.GA6924@amethyst.visucore.com>
	<55DB566F.1010702@mattcorallo.com> <20150824180044.GA5729@muck>
From: Matt Corallo <lf-lists@mattcorallo.com>
Message-ID: <55DB5D49.4050800@mattcorallo.com>
Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2015 18:07:05 +0000
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101
	Thunderbird/38.1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20150824180044.GA5729@muck>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Revisiting NODE_BLOOM: Proposed BIP
Precedence: list

BIP 111 was assigned, pull request (with the proposed changes) available
at https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/183

Matt

On 08/24/15 18:00, Peter Todd wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 05:37:51PM +0000, Matt Corallo via bitcoin-dev wrote:
>> Its more of a statement of "in the future, we expect things to happen
>> which would make this an interesting thing to do, so we state here that
>> it is not against spec to do so". Could reword it as "NODE_BLOOM is
>> distinct from NODE_NETWORK, and it is legal to advertise NODE_BLOOM but
>> not NODE_NETWORK (though there is little reason to do so now, some
>> proposals may make this more useful in the future)"?
> 
> ACK
>