MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <201205161829.44967.luke@dashjr.org>
References: <CA+8xBpd-0nXdda4fwyFonEY6rOSSyt=5goD-rbMTpvkcuHNTog@mail.gmail.com>
	<201205161829.44967.luke@dashjr.org>
Date: Wed, 16 May 2012 14:38:28 -0400
Message-ID: <CA+8xBpcFPdj9akeU9kN9CxERWp5VxKt7g0-mN4tf8NxsAe2+_w@mail.gmail.com>
From: Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@exmulti.com>
To: Luke-Jr <luke@dashjr.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Cc: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] P2P feature discovery (was Re: BIP 33 -
 Stratized Nodes)
Precedence: list

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....

-- 
Jeff Garzik
exMULTI, Inc.
jgarzik@exmulti.com