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 382FBBBC for ; Mon, 24 Aug 2015 17:37:54 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail.bluematt.me (mail.bluematt.me [192.241.179.72]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DFCB812E for ; Mon, 24 Aug 2015 17:37:53 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [172.17.0.1] (gw.vpn.bluematt.me [162.243.132.6]) by mail.bluematt.me (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 7843F560E5; Mon, 24 Aug 2015 17:37:52 +0000 (UTC) To: "Wladimir J. van der Laan" References: <55D6AD19.10305@mattcorallo.com> <20150824152955.GA6924@amethyst.visucore.com> From: Matt Corallo Message-ID: <55DB566F.1010702@mattcorallo.com> Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2015 17:37:51 +0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.1.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20150824152955.GA6924@amethyst.visucore.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 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 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2015 17:37:54 -0000 Its more of a statement of "in the future, we expect things to happen which would make this an interesting thing to do, so we state here that it is not against spec to do so". Could reword it as "NODE_BLOOM is distinct from NODE_NETWORK, and it is legal to advertise NODE_BLOOM but not NODE_NETWORK (though there is little reason to do so now, some proposals may make this more useful in the future)"? Matt On 08/24/15 15:29, Wladimir J. van der Laan wrote: >> 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 >