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
|
Received: from sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.193]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-1.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <laanwj@gmail.com>) id 1WwoH1-0003YM-BI
for Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Tue, 17 Jun 2014 07:57:43 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
designates 209.85.213.173 as permitted sender)
client-ip=209.85.213.173; envelope-from=laanwj@gmail.com;
helo=mail-ig0-f173.google.com;
Received: from mail-ig0-f173.google.com ([209.85.213.173])
by sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1WwoGz-0002o4-Il
for Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Tue, 17 Jun 2014 07:57:43 +0000
Received: by mail-ig0-f173.google.com with SMTP id r2so3879554igi.0
for <Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Tue, 17 Jun 2014 00:57:35 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.50.50.231 with SMTP id f7mr30599921igo.42.1402991855501;
Tue, 17 Jun 2014 00:57:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.64.60.195 with HTTP; Tue, 17 Jun 2014 00:57:35 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <20140617072351.GA7205@savin>
References: <20140617072351.GA7205@savin>
Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2014 09:57:35 +0200
Message-ID: <CA+s+GJAgQAZzwgONbD==fYTsV9jWKCZ6+gTiwohUT_H5kT_MoA@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: 1WwoGz-0002o4-Il
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: Tue, 17 Jun 2014 07:57:43 -0000
On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 9:23 AM, Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org> wrote:
> Alternately Wladimir J. van der Laan brought up elsewhere(2) the
> possibility for a wider notion of an extension namespace. I'm personally
> not convinced of the short-term need - we've got 64 service bits yet
> NODE_BLOOM is the first fully fleshed out proposal to use one - but it's
> worth thinking about for the long term
Yes, as I said in the github topic
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/4351) I suggest we adapt a
string-based name space for extensions.
A new network version could add a command 'getextensions' to query the
supported extensions, returning a list of extension strings or
(extension,version) pairs. For BIPs some something like 'BIP0064'
could be defined, but for an experiment for example
'experimental-getutxo'. This would be easy to implement and specify.
Unlike with the 64 service bits it does not require (as much) central
coordination to assign as there is no real danger of collisions. It
takes the political aspect out of P2P network extensions, and gives
more freedom to alternative implementations to experiment with their
own extensions. And no more need for bitcoin core to drive what must
be supported with increasing network versions.
Wladimir
|
