From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.193] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-3.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1XFiVL-0006OB-CY for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Fri, 08 Aug 2014 11:38:39 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com designates 209.85.219.45 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.219.45; envelope-from=mh.in.england@gmail.com; helo=mail-oa0-f45.google.com; Received: from mail-oa0-f45.google.com ([209.85.219.45]) by sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1XFiVK-0004EL-Hj for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Fri, 08 Aug 2014 11:38:39 +0000 Received: by mail-oa0-f45.google.com with SMTP id i7so3968072oag.32 for ; Fri, 08 Aug 2014 04:38:33 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.60.70.205 with SMTP id o13mr29501234oeu.38.1407497913063; Fri, 08 Aug 2014 04:38:33 -0700 (PDT) Sender: mh.in.england@gmail.com Received: by 10.76.35.234 with HTTP; Fri, 8 Aug 2014 04:38:33 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Fri, 8 Aug 2014 13:38:33 +0200 X-Google-Sender-Auth: Q2lCMlfdIO18-MXyDyzKOIpqYig Message-ID: From: Mike Hearn To: Jeff Garzik Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11333df621607005001ca5b2 X-Spam-Score: -0.5 (/) 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 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider (mh.in.england[at]gmail.com) -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record 1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message 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: 1XFiVK-0004EL-Hj 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 11:38:39 -0000 --001a11333df621607005001ca5b2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 I'd like to see a mechanism whereby a Bitcoin node can delegate processing of unknown messages to an external process, so a P2P node can be composed out of separated programs, but such a service would be indistinguishable at the network layer from one provided by Bitcoin Core itself, so a service bit would be appropriate for those. For instance, Insight could then offer a command set that extends the p2p protocol for doing block explorer type queries. There's no need for the protocol to be Insight specific. You'd just have NODE_INDEXED_CHAIN instead. Having the service run on some arbitrary other port isn't particularly useful, IMO - the biggest win from having some separated protocol would be the ability to use TLS, but if you're connecting to an IP address rather than a domain name (like if you discovered via service bits/getextsrv) this doesn't add much. It boils down to minor syntax differences in how numbers are laid out in a grid. And the performance issue remains. Additionally, nothing in this spec requires that a local bitcoind be running. What stops someone from advertising just NODE_EXTENDED_SERVICES and nothing else? I don't think a generic service advertisement mechanism is a bad thing to have, by the way, just pointing out that nothing makes this more focused than service bits already are. --001a11333df621607005001ca5b2 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I'd like to see a mechanism whereby a Bitcoin node can= delegate processing of unknown messages to an external process, so a P2P n= ode can be composed out of separated programs, but such a service would be = indistinguishable at the network layer from one provided by Bitcoin Core it= self, so a service bit would be appropriate for those.

For instance, Insight could then offer a command set that ex= tends the p2p protocol for doing block explorer type queries. There's n= o need for the protocol to be Insight specific. =C2=A0You'd just have N= ODE_INDEXED_CHAIN instead.

Having the service run on some arbitrary other port isn= 't particularly useful, IMO - the biggest win from having some separate= d protocol would be the ability to use TLS, but if you're connecting to= an IP address rather than a domain name (like if you discovered via servic= e bits/getextsrv) this doesn't add much. It boils down to minor syntax = differences in how numbers are laid out in a grid. And the performance issu= e remains.

Additionally, nothing in this spec requires that a loca= l bitcoind be running. What stops someone from advertising just NODE_EXTEND= ED_SERVICES and nothing else? I don't think a generic service advertise= ment mechanism is a bad thing to have, by the way, just pointing out that n= othing makes this more focused than service bits already are.
--001a11333df621607005001ca5b2--