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
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
|
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 <laanwj@gmail.com>) id 1VyzwF-00030i-AN
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Fri, 03 Jan 2014 08:17:03 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
designates 209.85.214.45 as permitted sender)
client-ip=209.85.214.45; envelope-from=laanwj@gmail.com;
helo=mail-bk0-f45.google.com;
Received: from mail-bk0-f45.google.com ([209.85.214.45])
by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1VyzwE-0004e6-FA
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Fri, 03 Jan 2014 08:17:03 +0000
Received: by mail-bk0-f45.google.com with SMTP id mx13so4835712bkb.32
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Fri, 03 Jan 2014 00:16:56 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.204.117.3 with SMTP id o3mr137221bkq.38.1388737016006; Fri,
03 Jan 2014 00:16:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.204.69.197 with HTTP; Fri, 3 Jan 2014 00:16:55 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CAKaEYhJmBT7Fai525-+Wba0HeU=WTjTpf_Ox66FnWQgsJatSOg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20140103052243.GK3180@nl.grid.coop>
<CAKaEYhJmBT7Fai525-+Wba0HeU=WTjTpf_Ox66FnWQgsJatSOg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 3 Jan 2014 09:16:55 +0100
Message-ID: <CA+s+GJC2Z2NNdSWTvkwcJS8jEHx=ytFiWLH7-4OLD8-L89AOuQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Wladimir <laanwj@gmail.com>
To: Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7bf0c13486ae6f04ef0c884d
X-Spam-Score: -0.6 (/)
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
1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message
-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: 1VyzwE-0004e6-FA
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] BIP: register with IANA for
bitcoin/cryptocoin port numbers
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: Fri, 03 Jan 2014 08:17:03 -0000
--047d7bf0c13486ae6f04ef0c884d
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
> Ideally it would be good to have two ports, one for the main net, and one
> for the test net. However, in light of conservation only one may be
> granted. The question as to whether traffic could be multiplexed over a
> single port may be raised.
>
I'm sure it would be *possible*, but testnet and mainnet are entirely
separate networks. Not only that, but the entire point of the testnet is
separation. There is no logic to multiplexing them.
If conservation is an issue, I'd forgo the testnet port. We don't have a
'test ssh' or 'test mail server' port either, most people will just
allocate a temporary number for those themselves.
In case the port is already in use, bitcoin can run on and announce any
another port. There is no strict need for it to be 8333 (or 18333) at all.
There isn't even an argument for convenience. Most of the time, users don't
specify nodes. And in the rare cases that they do they can specify a port
as well.
If a whole slew of alt coins also tried to reserve ports, I suspect that
> may raise eyebrows.
>
That's somebody else's problem. Bitcoin is by far the most well-known of
the 'coins' so it may be considered realistic to allocate one or two ports
for it. Or not, in which case the altcoins can forget it too.
Regards,
Wladimir
--047d7bf0c13486ae6f04ef0c884d
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<div dir=3D"ltr"><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><blo=
ckquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left=
-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;paddi=
ng-left:1ex">
<div dir=3D"ltr"><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><div=
>Ideally it would be good to have two ports, one for the main net, and=20
one for the test net.=C2=A0 However, in light of conservation only one may =
be
granted.=C2=A0 The question as to whether traffic could be multiplexed ove=
r a
single port may be raised.<br></div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><b=
r></div><div>I'm sure it would be *possible*, but testnet and mainnet a=
re entirely separate networks. Not only that, but the entire point of the t=
estnet is separation. There is no logic to multiplexing them.=C2=A0</div>
<div><br></div><div>If conservation is an issue, I'd forgo the testnet =
port. We don't have a 'test ssh' or 'test mail server' =
port either, most people will just allocate a temporary number for those th=
emselves.</div>
<div>=C2=A0</div><div>In case the port is already in use, bitcoin can run o=
n and announce any another port. There is no strict need for it to be 8333 =
(or 18333) at all.</div><div><br></div><div>There isn't even an argumen=
t for convenience. Most of the time, users don't specify nodes. And in =
the rare cases that they do they can specify a port as well.</div>
<div><br></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0p=
x 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-lef=
t-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div class=3D"gmail_extra"=
><div class=3D"gmail_quote">
<div>If a whole slew of alt coins also tried to reserve ports, I suspect th=
at may raise eyebrows.<br></div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></d=
iv><div>That's somebody else's problem. Bitcoin is by far the most =
well-known of the 'coins' so it may be considered realistic to allo=
cate one or two ports for it. Or not, in which case the altcoins can forget=
it too.</div>
<div><br></div><div>Regards,</div><div>Wladimir</div><div><br></div></div><=
/div></div>
--047d7bf0c13486ae6f04ef0c884d--
|
