From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.192] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-3.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1Wx0wh-0005es-1S for Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Tue, 17 Jun 2014 21:29:35 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of bitpay.com designates 74.125.82.48 as permitted sender) client-ip=74.125.82.48; envelope-from=jgarzik@bitpay.com; helo=mail-wg0-f48.google.com; Received: from mail-wg0-f48.google.com ([74.125.82.48]) by sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1Wx0wg-0002Mx-2f for Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Tue, 17 Jun 2014 21:29:35 +0000 Received: by mail-wg0-f48.google.com with SMTP id n12so7539507wgh.31 for ; Tue, 17 Jun 2014 14:29:27 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=iLjeIrI+zHtxg4g/K4eWWEnpQZparSQJPI89iytSYmc=; b=Aklp6VJV0b9N1HL1/A1mEluyqL+ofnFKWVKTG7K+2zQpUahhC3uPTuFhW1DN/qNftK nyifaIHxTJYynlf0aJcRE18MSPnaX5ORDdybBDHs9UR9DmWpsSdcVGm+bPUs7G1C49ku EaVCLLWeBekZVb3Rh9l8R6BeISIS7t+ibj2uOZbma0b+LBk8AmL6bBqUXXiFJdPkKjea 8/wnIdXPXG8lw1vckSQJnPYQsK3H/9GAQtspnHpELkC4gBmkRyQc0JhOJL6mr9QAIGdN YxiGmk2wclhzD27XAlEq/m93YHa064nz+cl0gm6R6wFhnhqU2PnAruOkEy0vrMiHRycN FP2Q== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnbYOkGJvJmlBNTojRXwNL/2jJKNx73Joh5d4hBAcWnE+9YpMHCFJEXIou+uhTMT3GCFJzt X-Received: by 10.194.87.200 with SMTP id ba8mr41580309wjb.28.1403040567703; Tue, 17 Jun 2014 14:29:27 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.195.12.3 with HTTP; Tue, 17 Jun 2014 14:29:07 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <20140617072351.GA7205@savin> From: Jeff Garzik Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2014 17:29:07 -0400 Message-ID: To: Wladimir Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Spam-Score: -1.6 (-) X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net. See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details. -1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for sender-domain -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record -0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from author's domain 0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not necessarily valid -0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature X-Headers-End: 1Wx0wg-0002Mx-2f Cc: Bitcoin Dev Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Proposal: allocate 8 service bits for experimental use X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2014 21:29:35 -0000 I wrote a patch for string-based name extensions, circa 2011-2012. I agree that is preferable to unreadable bits, for reasons you cite. However, it was noted that extensions (or UUIDs etc.) would not be propagated around the network in "addr" messages, as service bits are. On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 3:57 AM, Wladimir wrote: > On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 9:23 AM, Peter Todd wrote: > >> Alternately Wladimir J. van der Laan brought up elsewhere(2) the >> possibility for a wider notion of an extension namespace. I'm personally >> not convinced of the short-term need - we've got 64 service bits yet >> NODE_BLOOM is the first fully fleshed out proposal to use one - but it's >> worth thinking about for the long term > > Yes, as I said in the github topic > (https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/4351) I suggest we adapt a > string-based name space for extensions. > > A new network version could add a command 'getextensions' to query the > supported extensions, returning a list of extension strings or > (extension,version) pairs. For BIPs some something like 'BIP0064' > could be defined, but for an experiment for example > 'experimental-getutxo'. This would be easy to implement and specify. > > Unlike with the 64 service bits it does not require (as much) central > coordination to assign as there is no real danger of collisions. It > takes the political aspect out of P2P network extensions, and gives > more freedom to alternative implementations to experiment with their > own extensions. And no more need for bitcoin core to drive what must > be supported with increasing network versions. > > Wladimir > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > HPCC Systems Open Source Big Data Platform from LexisNexis Risk Solutions > Find What Matters Most in Your Big Data with HPCC Systems > Open Source. Fast. Scalable. Simple. Ideal for Dirty Data. > Leverages Graph Analysis for Fast Processing & Easy Data Exploration > http://p.sf.net/sfu/hpccsystems > _______________________________________________ > Bitcoin-development mailing list > Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development -- Jeff Garzik Bitcoin core developer and open source evangelist BitPay, Inc. https://bitpay.com/