Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 31A60D70 for ; Tue, 8 Mar 2016 06:09:54 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-io0-f172.google.com (mail-io0-f172.google.com [209.85.223.172]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B34F7EE for ; Tue, 8 Mar 2016 06:09:53 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-io0-f172.google.com with SMTP id g203so14886689iof.2 for ; Mon, 07 Mar 2016 22:09:53 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to; bh=Q35h/8l0UEN5CSjoaQNsBwrANeKotJQgAcefZkacPUQ=; b=LQAFL/Y13o3ld/VYY+MQbTAuS06Lv/SHy/bz6F7O747jeC8HZuNzsIsnKFFSwjC9tk fCdofqL/YROOESEVxRLVLsPafliyZxvUnE5Mhf1q9XhF3dmYnRj6bTqBFxw2hTSeHgeg oVilDwX0Tyyo0/GK1XR0fctReBQmL+Oz6FTKo/0boB4ksJhOjOvrAQJBlcJsyEqgJjds YdiMrIldV0QDJvJFbhyaqtB/F4HwSBNf3uAf5KAENHnnu/3txcJ1hlI+jXnGyXvAq23T +7PwPqENi2I0/5StrsbjNjvxVFKaYQh6GBFKjLlxeg9O3jpaGR1rnY8W49riW1prB/VJ bAqA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to; bh=Q35h/8l0UEN5CSjoaQNsBwrANeKotJQgAcefZkacPUQ=; b=GQhCLn5B4Re6a1k0Ih/sA7hisbh3e1hUFz1NBr2wR0Tz0E3WwsxIMdpu/L8yfMxpQj 1ukWmL8DaSAPW0/rAAjX63y3XZquwwVAXTWH4Msx52/ywhBzWzW9lceLHrz591sQFzwg LxhZ4q4rVO4k1uLjX5VFs7YzNjDv1WhN1prGNitAecKYKFUpiC0ndhjlYG0c4X/QkVys rVs7SrfK+4L7wgTI0ZV2jPy0WffG+3JRoZK59AcWeGJkTxhFeJgiXUKE7LU2Y64tfXje 6fbYnD18OY7E5E9mqjOWqLCFXxH39sjxOVVWP6djcAqCWvM18RVdq+If4MVwfzb7RewM uwTQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AD7BkJIeVEVUhF92KD77XEBBsQAmwaj82SzUEronIfjiVOb1TLdgU0U+GEmNeoq4P2hszfYCc9i1eVN8pmaw3w== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.107.14.196 with SMTP id 187mr25300884ioo.134.1457417393246; Mon, 07 Mar 2016 22:09:53 -0800 (PST) Sender: gmaxwell@gmail.com Received: by 10.107.198.6 with HTTP; Mon, 7 Mar 2016 22:09:53 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2016 06:09:53 +0000 X-Google-Sender-Auth: AMhI3eSMHu-cl9qQ5W7zHtaZSgw Message-ID: From: Gregory Maxwell To: Bitcoin Dev Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, 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 X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 08 Mar 2016 06:56:55 +0000 Subject: [bitcoin-dev] Fwd: Services bit for xthin blocks 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: Tue, 08 Mar 2016 06:09:54 -0000 X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 08 Mar 2016 06:09:54 -0000 On Tue, Mar 8, 2016 at 5:14 AM, Dave Scotese wrote: > I think a BIP is a good idea, but rather than making such a specific > proposal as "Let's use bit 4 to indicate communication of thin blocks," how > about a more general one like "Let's use bit(s?) 4(-5?) as user-agent Not communicated in address messages, so useless for discovery. I think any feature which could do this could use the BIP130 approach instead.