1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
|
Received: from sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.191]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-1.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <pete@petertodd.org>) id 1WwnkM-0002F5-OS
for Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Tue, 17 Jun 2014 07:23:58 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of petertodd.org
designates 62.13.148.99 as permitted sender)
client-ip=62.13.148.99; envelope-from=pete@petertodd.org;
helo=outmail148099.authsmtp.net;
Received: from outmail148099.authsmtp.net ([62.13.148.99])
by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
id 1WwnkK-0007er-LA for Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Tue, 17 Jun 2014 07:23:58 +0000
Received: from mail-c235.authsmtp.com (mail-c235.authsmtp.com [62.13.128.235])
by punt18.authsmtp.com (8.14.2/8.14.2/) with ESMTP id s5H7NoX2037428
for <Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Tue, 17 Jun 2014 08:23:50 +0100 (BST)
Received: from savin (76-10-178-109.dsl.teksavvy.com [76.10.178.109])
(authenticated bits=128)
by mail.authsmtp.com (8.14.2/8.14.2/) with ESMTP id s5H7Niss068410
(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO)
for <Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Tue, 17 Jun 2014 08:23:46 +0100 (BST)
Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2014 03:23:51 -0400
From: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>
To: Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
Message-ID: <20140617072351.GA7205@savin>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256;
protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="YZ5djTAD1cGYuMQK"
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
X-Server-Quench: 523d3ea8-f5f0-11e3-b396-002590a15da7
X-AuthReport-Spam: If SPAM / abuse - report it at:
http://www.authsmtp.com/abuse
X-AuthRoute: OCd2Yg0TA1ZNQRgX IjsJECJaVQIpKltL GxAVBwpGK10IU0Fd
P1hXKl1LNVAaWXld WiVPGEoXDxgzCjYj NEgGOBsDNw4AXgJ1
Kg0XXVBSFQF4ARQL BB0UVh48cANYeX5u ZEFqQHFbVVt/fUFi
QwAXEBUBGz4jK2AZ WERZd01QeQVIMBpH aQR8ASIFfDMCMHp9
RlY+ZHU7ZmQBbXwN GFxcdVtLHEoCQSgE XRcaGi4mGR9NTiE3
KBcvNlNUTA4KP18s MFAsEVgZLwRaBApE V0xdGCJDJlwMQTYi CUtHRkN2
X-Authentic-SMTP: 61633532353630.1023:706
X-AuthFastPath: 0 (Was 255)
X-AuthSMTP-Origin: 76.10.178.109/587
X-AuthVirus-Status: No virus detected - but ensure you scan with your own
anti-virus system.
X-Spam-Score: -1.5 (-)
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 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/,
no trust [62.13.148.99 listed in list.dnswl.org]
-0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record
X-Headers-End: 1WwnkK-0007er-LA
Subject: [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: <bitcoin-development.lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_name=bitcoin-development>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2014 07:23:58 -0000
--YZ5djTAD1cGYuMQK
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
For my replace-by-fee implementation(1) I used service bit 26 to let
preferential peering work so that replace-by-fee nodes could easily find
each other. Of course, that's a temporary/experimental usage that can be
dropped after wider adoption, so I included the following comment:
// Reserve 24-31 for temporary experiments
NODE_REPLACE_BY_FEE =3D (1 << 26)
Service bits are never a guaranteed thing anyway, so occasional
collisions can and should be tolerated by applications using these
experimental service bits.
Alternately Wladimir J. van der Laan brought up elsewhere(2) the
possibility for a wider notion of an extension namespace. I'm personally
not convinced of the short-term need - we've got 64 service bits yet
NODE_BLOOM is the first fully fleshed out proposal to use one - but it's
worth thinking about for the long term.
1) https://github.com/petertodd/bitcoin/tree/replace-by-fee-v0.9.1
2) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/4351#issuecomment-46272958
--=20
'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
000000000000000058ca7ee3a40438ea5a96e499910638352468c6d69abdb226
--YZ5djTAD1cGYuMQK
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: Digital signature
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.14 (GNU/Linux)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==
=1z8P
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--YZ5djTAD1cGYuMQK--
|
