From: "Luke-Jr" <luke@dashjr.org>
To: Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@exmulti.com>
Date: Wed, 16 May 2012 18:46:49 +0000
User-Agent: KMail/1.13.7 (Linux/3.2.12-gentoo; KDE/4.8.1; x86_64; ; )
References: <CA+8xBpd-0nXdda4fwyFonEY6rOSSyt=5goD-rbMTpvkcuHNTog@mail.gmail.com>
	<201205161829.44967.luke@dashjr.org>
	<CA+8xBpcFPdj9akeU9kN9CxERWp5VxKt7g0-mN4tf8NxsAe2+_w@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CA+8xBpcFPdj9akeU9kN9CxERWp5VxKt7g0-mN4tf8NxsAe2+_w@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain;
  charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <201205161846.50784.luke@dashjr.org>
Cc: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] P2P feature discovery (was Re: BIP 33 -
	Stratized Nodes)
Precedence: list

On Wednesday, May 16, 2012 6:38:28 PM Jeff Garzik wrote:
> On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 2:29 PM, Luke-Jr <luke@dashjr.org> wrote:
> > That assumes you already have a connection to the peer in question.
> > As I understand it, the service bits are propagated as part of the
> > address, so you can see at a glance which nodes you want to connect to
> > for some special service. Passing a huge list along might be unwieldy
> > (though it makes sense for protocol changes that don't add new
> > services).
> 
> If the peer list becomes too, um, stratified maybe that's a Big Hint
> that said clients should be using another network entirely, and not
> overloading bitcoin's P2P network for wholly unrelated tasks.  The
> bitcoin P2P network is not a general message transit network.
> 
> Another argument against the proposal, IOW, if you ask me....

No, I meant the inverse. If only a small minority of nodes are stratified, 
the clients need some way to figure out which ones, without connecting to 
every node.