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
|
Received: from sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.193]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-3.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <mh.in.england@gmail.com>) id 1XFiVL-0006OB-CY
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Fri, 08 Aug 2014 11:38:39 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
designates 209.85.219.45 as permitted sender)
client-ip=209.85.219.45; envelope-from=mh.in.england@gmail.com;
helo=mail-oa0-f45.google.com;
Received: from mail-oa0-f45.google.com ([209.85.219.45])
by sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1XFiVK-0004EL-Hj
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Fri, 08 Aug 2014 11:38:39 +0000
Received: by mail-oa0-f45.google.com with SMTP id i7so3968072oag.32
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Fri, 08 Aug 2014 04:38:33 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.60.70.205 with SMTP id o13mr29501234oeu.38.1407497913063;
Fri, 08 Aug 2014 04:38:33 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: mh.in.england@gmail.com
Received: by 10.76.35.234 with HTTP; Fri, 8 Aug 2014 04:38:33 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAJHLa0N3xx1QZ==iSLYNsdgkBGoqN34+4eVtukkjn+3SrDhC7A@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAJHLa0Ok6s5xQcMSeLa69adLBXEaicuXqcg45eZrwYtVFbx-dA@mail.gmail.com>
<CANEZrP2wYcxJhxRRa86Nm9ENtK2SA5VNG-L7f5pHb_W=Ajcj5Q@mail.gmail.com>
<CA+s+GJD+9qpwFcVfHOCCsFYjmk7A0V=65vG-7jJ6D7jj4Pi_7g@mail.gmail.com>
<CANEZrP245242JYDBBo72XVmKgEBO96QPjcJi8Jy2Dm_r90n1Bw@mail.gmail.com>
<CAJHLa0N3xx1QZ==iSLYNsdgkBGoqN34+4eVtukkjn+3SrDhC7A@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 8 Aug 2014 13:38:33 +0200
X-Google-Sender-Auth: Q2lCMlfdIO18-MXyDyzKOIpqYig
Message-ID: <CANEZrP1mhSodC-ZvkuVKAgHO44bM7QX=RivRDhnDeHOKr8PXqQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net>
To: Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@bitpay.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11333df621607005001ca5b2
X-Spam-Score: -0.5 (/)
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 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider
(mh.in.england[at]gmail.com)
-0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record
1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message
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: 1XFiVK-0004EL-Hj
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] NODE_EXT_SERVICES and advertising related
services
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, 08 Aug 2014 11:38:39 -0000
--001a11333df621607005001ca5b2
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
I'd like to see a mechanism whereby a Bitcoin node can delegate processing
of unknown messages to an external process, so a P2P node can be composed
out of separated programs, but such a service would be indistinguishable at
the network layer from one provided by Bitcoin Core itself, so a service
bit would be appropriate for those.
For instance, Insight could then offer a command set that extends the p2p
protocol for doing block explorer type queries. There's no need for the
protocol to be Insight specific. You'd just have NODE_INDEXED_CHAIN
instead.
Having the service run on some arbitrary other port isn't particularly
useful, IMO - the biggest win from having some separated protocol would be
the ability to use TLS, but if you're connecting to an IP address rather
than a domain name (like if you discovered via service bits/getextsrv) this
doesn't add much. It boils down to minor syntax differences in how numbers
are laid out in a grid. And the performance issue remains.
Additionally, nothing in this spec requires that a local bitcoind be
running. What stops someone from advertising just NODE_EXTENDED_SERVICES
and nothing else? I don't think a generic service advertisement mechanism
is a bad thing to have, by the way, just pointing out that nothing makes
this more focused than service bits already are.
--001a11333df621607005001ca5b2
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<div dir=3D"ltr">I'd like to see a mechanism whereby a Bitcoin node can=
delegate processing of unknown messages to an external process, so a P2P n=
ode can be composed out of separated programs, but such a service would be =
indistinguishable at the network layer from one provided by Bitcoin Core it=
self, so a service bit would be appropriate for those.<div>
<br></div><div>For instance, Insight could then offer a command set that ex=
tends the p2p protocol for doing block explorer type queries. There's n=
o need for the protocol to be Insight specific. =C2=A0You'd just have N=
ODE_INDEXED_CHAIN instead.</div>
<div><br></div><div>Having the service run on some arbitrary other port isn=
't particularly useful, IMO - the biggest win from having some separate=
d protocol would be the ability to use TLS, but if you're connecting to=
an IP address rather than a domain name (like if you discovered via servic=
e bits/getextsrv) this doesn't add much. It boils down to minor syntax =
differences in how numbers are laid out in a grid. And the performance issu=
e remains.</div>
<div><br></div><div>Additionally, nothing in this spec requires that a loca=
l bitcoind be running. What stops someone from advertising just NODE_EXTEND=
ED_SERVICES and nothing else? I don't think a generic service advertise=
ment mechanism is a bad thing to have, by the way, just pointing out that n=
othing makes this more focused than service bits already are.</div>
</div>
--001a11333df621607005001ca5b2--
|
