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 8636BBC6 for ; Mon, 24 Aug 2015 18:07:08 +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 1EBA4180 for ; Mon, 24 Aug 2015 18:07:08 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [172.17.0.1] (gw.vpn.bluematt.me [162.243.132.6]) by mail.bluematt.me (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B4DEE560E5; Mon, 24 Aug 2015 18:07:06 +0000 (UTC) To: Peter Todd References: <55D6AD19.10305@mattcorallo.com> <20150824152955.GA6924@amethyst.visucore.com> <55DB566F.1010702@mattcorallo.com> <20150824180044.GA5729@muck> From: Matt Corallo Message-ID: <55DB5D49.4050800@mattcorallo.com> Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2015 18:07:05 +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: <20150824180044.GA5729@muck> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 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 18:07:08 -0000 BIP 111 was assigned, pull request (with the proposed changes) available at https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/183 Matt On 08/24/15 18:00, Peter Todd wrote: > On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 05:37:51PM +0000, Matt Corallo via bitcoin-dev wrote: >> 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)"? > > ACK >