From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <laanwj@gmail.com>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
	[172.17.192.35])
	by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9E4C586
	for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
	Mon, 24 Aug 2015 15:29:48 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-wi0-f178.google.com (mail-wi0-f178.google.com
	[209.85.212.178])
	by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 289B0176
	for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
	Mon, 24 Aug 2015 15:29:48 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by widdq5 with SMTP id dq5so75651765wid.0
	for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
	Mon, 24 Aug 2015 08:29:46 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
	h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version
	:content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to;
	bh=cio/TDjsx2SpU3M+JdWroLX3Yydf5gcGg3v/06UGKKs=;
	b=U8VFdMsRZJj+QrcXaTMcoxiWoLVzbf8QhkjrKRYww9UkXK3mZKrhOO09jXCUva0hgT
	6FjbXcLDjYCpJNxVQ5vX0C8LHK6eHMQnYUocflMjjlqdkqfNaLXpU/4jbBzpGXt0N02+
	AWvpNSkPotO9UDgEd7Q524ASI0GZTS9R93MEUh8wgwKSFRkS65PBu1fjAh08mSoiHgCo
	VCfyiRl75jckRFt9ZebX7mKMdTeSM0symmKsTsBqB+FRZxANJo02BCMo/oVm5UqZgH1O
	yWUuIae60p8W/K4H1y3WIs2vCM/XLDwHBMEY3/pZ8Luo+5mLSULgwwsMJ5fP+tHSg5G8
	qPlA==
X-Received: by 10.180.37.7 with SMTP id u7mr29282729wij.79.1440430186813;
	Mon, 24 Aug 2015 08:29:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from amethyst.visucore.com (dhcp-089-098-228-253.chello.nl.
	[89.98.228.253]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id
	k4sm16677903wix.19.2015.08.24.08.29.45
	(version=TLS1_2 cipher=AES128-SHA256 bits=128/128);
	Mon, 24 Aug 2015 08:29:45 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2015 17:29:57 +0200
From: "Wladimir J. van der Laan" <laanwj@gmail.com>
To: Matt Corallo <lf-lists@mattcorallo.com>
Message-ID: <20150824152955.GA6924@amethyst.visucore.com>
References: <55D6AD19.10305@mattcorallo.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <55D6AD19.10305@mattcorallo.com>
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,
	DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, FREEMAIL_FROM,
	RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=ham version=3.3.1
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
	smtp1.linux-foundation.org
Cc: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Revisiting NODE_BLOOM: Proposed BIP
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Bitcoin Development Discussion <bitcoin-dev.lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/options/bitcoin-dev>,
	<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev>,
	<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2015 15:29:48 -0000

> NODE_BLOOM is distinct from NODE_NETWORK, and it is legal to advertise
> NODE_BLOOM but not NODE_NETWORK (eg for nodes running in pruned mode
> which, nonetheless, provide filtered access to the data which they do have).

But is this useful without having decided on a way to signal which blocks pruned nodes do have?

It looks like the part between paranthesis is speculation and should be left to a future BIP. 

Wladimir