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
|
Received: from sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.194]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-2.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <gmaxwell@gmail.com>) id 1T0wFW-0007ip-DK
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Mon, 13 Aug 2012 15:08:10 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
designates 209.85.213.175 as permitted sender)
client-ip=209.85.213.175; envelope-from=gmaxwell@gmail.com;
helo=mail-yx0-f175.google.com;
Received: from mail-yx0-f175.google.com ([209.85.213.175])
by sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1T0wFU-0004LR-ND
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Mon, 13 Aug 2012 15:08:10 +0000
Received: by yenm1 with SMTP id m1so3234770yen.34
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Mon, 13 Aug 2012 08:08:03 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.50.202.73 with SMTP id kg9mr5884836igc.42.1344870475286; Mon,
13 Aug 2012 08:07:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.64.77.168 with HTTP; Mon, 13 Aug 2012 08:07:55 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CA+8xBpfZzxBgqO6xT6+a_ACgYR=3cV9rmY_kmSovtT3dfjdhDg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <5028AFBE.8070104@justmoon.de>
<CA+8xBpfZzxBgqO6xT6+a_ACgYR=3cV9rmY_kmSovtT3dfjdhDg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2012 11:07:55 -0400
Message-ID: <CAAS2fgSgE0fOetuJZDPVeEMxbDo91r0w3Hvvn4vDdChCH1zxdA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell@gmail.com>
To: Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@exmulti.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
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
(gmaxwell[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
1.1 AWL AWL: From: address is in the auto white-list
X-Headers-End: 1T0wFU-0004LR-ND
Cc: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] BIP: Custom 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: Mon, 13 Aug 2012 15:08:10 -0000
On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 10:24 AM, Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@exmulti.com> wrote:
> My only response is a weak one: inevitability. It seems likely that
> -somebody- will implement their own P2P commands for their own client
> subset, even if only a simple "use 'getstatus' with strSubVer matching
> /FooClient/"
>
> Therefore, if it is inevitable, we might as well make some basic rules
> about how to extended your P2P command set.
I'm not opposed to that logic. But for cases where an introduction mechanism
will be needed... it would be awfully good to have one, and I do think that
there is harm in making people think that simple services negotiation will
actually work for their needs for cases where a separate p2p network is
needed.
|
