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
|
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
|
