Received: from sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.193] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-3.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1XFjNW-0000MT-Ft for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Fri, 08 Aug 2014 12:34:38 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com designates 209.85.223.173 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.223.173; envelope-from=laanwj@gmail.com; helo=mail-ie0-f173.google.com; Received: from mail-ie0-f173.google.com ([209.85.223.173]) by sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1XFjNV-00066B-SY for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Fri, 08 Aug 2014 12:34:38 +0000 Received: by mail-ie0-f173.google.com with SMTP id tr6so6315703ieb.32 for ; Fri, 08 Aug 2014 05:34:32 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.50.50.229 with SMTP id f5mr4677397igo.42.1407501272593; Fri, 08 Aug 2014 05:34:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.64.27.228 with HTTP; Fri, 8 Aug 2014 05:34:32 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Fri, 8 Aug 2014 14:34:32 +0200 Message-ID: From: Wladimir To: Mike Hearn 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: 1XFjNV-00066B-SY Cc: Bitcoin Dev 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: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 08 Aug 2014 12:34:38 -0000 On Fri, Aug 8, 2014 at 2:11 PM, Mike Hearn wrote: > Maybe, that feels like it could be overkill though. Probably just something > like > > ./bitcoind -servicecookie= -allowextservices=127.0.0.1/8 I don't like conflating the external and internal interface. The interface to the outside and the interface to the inside should be well-separated. I'd be OK with such an idea if bitcoind listens on a separate port for connections from plugins, a port that cannot be used for normal P2P traffic. This could also be a UNIX socket instead of a TCP port. Wladimir