From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.191] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-2.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1XFiGP-0008GO-33 for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Fri, 08 Aug 2014 11:23:13 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of bitpay.com designates 209.85.213.170 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.213.170; envelope-from=jgarzik@bitpay.com; helo=mail-ig0-f170.google.com; Received: from mail-ig0-f170.google.com ([209.85.213.170]) by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1XFiGO-0005PN-3q for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Fri, 08 Aug 2014 11:23:13 +0000 Received: by mail-ig0-f170.google.com with SMTP id h3so2364850igd.5 for ; Fri, 08 Aug 2014 04:23:06 -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=EgWBa3H6nKYknBpjtelLuAAtBCudifK+I+4ENwVKu1U=; b=eIOCRmuXfIdGDqyLwqgmlkd6Wi+qZsJaVl/cODhqG1UaBb/5yTDqPqG6blX5CbXsyq nxo5kUWCYuvVafNWgSodV4dPm2QWGlQmqcT7QkA7S/x8Dzh0affiUgRCuhqBYA8zZfi8 B7mbRUsReedhlmxje1oll5+o3JPQiYbDLWtILodYFF1Y3DTyRfSWANqhoBRYO2v6S2We Lqcm73mAxQLkyj5mHVdsSjr9ReqQqvuMm1LPdOjOUsbkCoApbAuoUd5REAq08tI70atP Ks5wJjxMXFlYZZCQinWSI2trd4df2f/b4raALf7YDB7cvKCr1h5cDKaBVxKvtFFBbAZE BG2A== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQml/iTesOIhsl0OQX1j/Ojc13GmLInKXO4Qsu1/qZNB9ICwyqJ931vnk+YjWD5fQZFNWxsT X-Received: by 10.42.178.133 with SMTP id bm5mr10918369icb.75.1407496986658; Fri, 08 Aug 2014 04:23:06 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.107.10.78 with HTTP; Fri, 8 Aug 2014 04:22:46 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: From: Jeff Garzik Date: Fri, 8 Aug 2014 07:22:46 -0400 Message-ID: To: Christian Decker 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: 1XFiGO-0005PN-3q Cc: Bitcoin Dev Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] NODE_EXT_SERVICES and advertising related services 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: Fri, 08 Aug 2014 11:23:13 -0000 This is not a generic "I run a website!" advertisement feature. NODE_EXT_SERVICES is tightly focused on services that exist if-any-only-if a P2P bitcoin node (bitcoind) is reachable via the same advertised address. You may usefully create overlay networks of specialized services. On Fri, Aug 8, 2014 at 6:41 AM, Christian Decker wrote: > I wonder whether we actually want to support this kind of advertisement in > the P2P protocol. We have a working mechanism for protocol extensions in the > P2P network (service flags) so this is obviously only for services that are > not P2P extensions, so why have them in there at all? > > I'd argue that a parallel network, external to Bitcoin, could take over the > task of advertising external services. > > Regards, > Chris > > -- > Christian Decker > > > On Fri, Aug 8, 2014 at 11:26 AM, Wladimir wrote: >> >> On Fri, Aug 8, 2014 at 12:15 PM, Wladimir wrote: >> > On Fri, Aug 8, 2014 at 12:01 PM, Mike Hearn wrote: >> >>> He wants to use it to advertise services that are not part of the P2P >> >>> protocol itself, but run on a different port. Reserving services bits >> >>> for those is not acceptable. >> >> >> >> >> >> Why not? Does the port matter much? >> > >> > Yes. The services bits are for advertising services on the P2P >> > network. That's not open for discussion. >> >> It also wouldn't work. A bit is not enough to find an external service >> except in the naive case where the advertised service would have a >> fixed port. Not even bitcoind has a fixed port. So there needs to be a >> mechanism to find how to connect to the 'external service'. This is >> provided by the proposed extension. >> >> It would in principle be possible to advertise an extra service bit >> *in addition to* this one, to make it easier to find through the addr >> mechanism. But it would be confusing and IMO an abuse of P2P service >> bits. >> >> Wladimir >> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> Want fast and easy access to all the code in your enterprise? Index and >> search up to 200,000 lines of code with a free copy of Black Duck >> Code Sight - the same software that powers the world's largest code >> search on Ohloh, the Black Duck Open Hub! Try it now. >> http://p.sf.net/sfu/bds >> _______________________________________________ >> Bitcoin-development mailing list >> Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Want fast and easy access to all the code in your enterprise? Index and > search up to 200,000 lines of code with a free copy of Black Duck > Code Sight - the same software that powers the world's largest code > search on Ohloh, the Black Duck Open Hub! Try it now. > http://p.sf.net/sfu/bds > _______________________________________________ > 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/