From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1664888A for ; Mon, 19 Jun 2017 19:42:54 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mx-out03.mykolab.com (mx.kolabnow.com [95.128.36.1]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 534F81A0 for ; Mon, 19 Jun 2017 19:42:53 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at kolabnow.com X-Spam-Score: -2.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 Received: from mx04.mykolab.com (mx04.mykolab.com [10.20.7.102]) by mx-out03.mykolab.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C800328E8D for ; Mon, 19 Jun 2017 21:42:49 +0200 (CEST) From: Tom Zander To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2017 21:46:57 +0200 Message-ID: <3654399.ZkJ0Jlgova@cherry> In-Reply-To: <201706191926.25006.luke@dashjr.org> References: <201706191926.25006.luke@dashjr.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 19 Jun 2017 20:02:48 +0000 Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP148 temporary service bit (1 << 27) X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2017 19:42:54 -0000 On Monday, 19 June 2017 21:26:22 CEST Luke Dashjr via bitcoin-dev wrote: > To ease the transition to BIP148 and to minimise risks in the event miners > choose to perform a chain split attack, at least Bitcoin Knots will be > using the temporary service bit (1 << 27) to indicate BIP148 support. > > Once the transition is complete, this will no longer be necessary, and the > bit will be (manually) returned for reuse. > > I encourage other software implementing BIP148 (both full and light nodes) > to set and use this service bit to avoid network partitioning risks. I'm curious what you action on the finding (or not) of a peer with this bit set (or not). Can you link to the github commit where you implemented this? -- Tom Zander Blog: https://zander.github.io Vlog: https://vimeo.com/channels/tomscryptochannel