Received: from sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.192] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-2.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from <laanwj@gmail.com>) id 1WxD2D-0005yS-Ke for Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Wed, 18 Jun 2014 10:24:05 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com designates 209.85.213.169 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.213.169; envelope-from=laanwj@gmail.com; helo=mail-ig0-f169.google.com; Received: from mail-ig0-f169.google.com ([209.85.213.169]) by sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1WxD2B-0002V4-U2 for Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Wed, 18 Jun 2014 10:24:05 +0000 Received: by mail-ig0-f169.google.com with SMTP id a13so6063017igq.2 for <Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>; Wed, 18 Jun 2014 03:23:58 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.50.65.3 with SMTP id t3mr3743771igs.20.1403087037986; Wed, 18 Jun 2014 03:23:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.64.60.195 with HTTP; Wed, 18 Jun 2014 03:23:57 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20140617072351.GA7205@savin> References: <20140617072351.GA7205@savin> Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2014 12:23:57 +0200 Message-ID: <CA+s+GJBw84dxc7pvJef-c=m7Dj0Cjy=O4PjNKB=5Bt2spM83OA@mail.gmail.com> From: Wladimir <laanwj@gmail.com> To: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org> 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: 1WxD2B-0002V4-U2 Cc: Bitcoin Dev <Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net> Subject: Re: [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: Wed, 18 Jun 2014 10:24:05 -0000 On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 9:23 AM, Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org> wrote: > 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 = (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. Anyhow -- back to the original proposal. I'm fine with setting aside part of the service bit space for experiments. Wladimir