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 A27D9D19 for ; Mon, 7 Mar 2016 20:51:02 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-ig0-f170.google.com (mail-ig0-f170.google.com [209.85.213.170]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9D581129 for ; Mon, 7 Mar 2016 20:51:01 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-ig0-f170.google.com with SMTP id ig19so1290710igb.1 for ; Mon, 07 Mar 2016 12:51:01 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:cc; bh=BcdMAsLQphvsDm3gM6Eq3oAYljOspWBGxUtMv9IA124=; b=F/JvfT831rWfIu7Jja9Jrji+gymhInYSjco//tqBQtefgNrpSpeW5tB8Ha7kHcGDSF V+iONCja6jZGg8DFFVZK4LBlDu4NW5Iw6/nxvflBkgrTEJHg9qAobvYI8GtQc6Xro/IN 9EfTX9A4NaJDeUrN3e+XUC6KULPPBl9QvYdBl2wwH3nk+eZo1j5amVJq1xecrIr9AMri nQ1/tTih4Cki+zcQknmeHxW+1x+9Z0rix05pnWjsGWKCQrya5vGxelBqTxcnrU9zT0Uk tRXRsMY2n5qTcmaqH6etJ2gxhDd6AHHPuxFN8zaU/bac0NcttFU4xRlpIVdjKVEzFCpe yjng== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc; bh=BcdMAsLQphvsDm3gM6Eq3oAYljOspWBGxUtMv9IA124=; b=TGKicOaHjr48FswSF1dXckZclk3ubAm4sL2WjHZ/DhZFCwNzu05ph3ltNmHHplZOjH Dy5vO1JZxkpF1GwhhAXlHzAYWz69Ki4lK3eIvYMkz0wgKuvS/vxFthKLB7SwTcslPGuI XqAr0WWuL7lUB6tTVcM60dgImZiy/WmRngbokl1nvnP3sgVlhboHL+mYCSYpvlXWpSUC DVFK2B0Hez2J0Wfy5q/S0kA2Qz4s4JyKxYqitcPvoavloj3iTnd5PgUC/uTg2fdJyYKz YyfDUQf5SgKrK3/4oYuZabVKRyeUbhfBiKo/gnoIm7dErO5N4sM1Q5HndoC0nZedoz3P 59Qg== X-Gm-Message-State: AD7BkJJELkg6kXqWDiVV1O4tqq1+fsRKlDkuIPYxwMRUUnx5eK4UpDZU5VYfY2IHBzddgYDdcm2hLVMzFNqcuQ== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.50.73.161 with SMTP id m1mr13655053igv.48.1457383860964; Mon, 07 Mar 2016 12:51:00 -0800 (PST) Sender: gmaxwell@gmail.com Received: by 10.107.198.6 with HTTP; Mon, 7 Mar 2016 12:51:00 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Mon, 7 Mar 2016 20:51:00 +0000 X-Google-Sender-Auth: SOvm96dK39iXTTq1w59kXHGDLcg Message-ID: From: Gregory Maxwell To: "G. Andrew Stone" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, 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 X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 07 Mar 2016 20:57:47 +0000 Cc: Bitcoin Dev Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Services bit for xthin blocks 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, 07 Mar 2016 20:51:02 -0000 On Mon, Mar 7, 2016 at 8:06 PM, G. Andrew Stone via bitcoin-dev wrote: > The Bitcoin Unlimited client needs a services bit to indicate that the node > is capable of communicating thin blocks. We propose to use bit 4 as AFAIK > bit 3 is already earmarked for Segregated Witness. Does this functionality change peer selection? If not, the preferred signaling mechanism is probably the one in BIP 130. Otherwise, I think the standard method for getting numbers has been to write a BIP documenting the usage. I don't know if that is intentional or just how things have previously happened; and I don't have much of an opinion on it.