G. Andrew Stone [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2016-03-08 📝 Original message:Included at the bottom of ...
📅 Original date posted:2016-03-08
📝 Original message:Included at the bottom of this mail is a BIP concerning our impending use
of a particular services bit.
I am making a good-faith effort to notify the community of this use and
follow the BIP submission rules with a correctly formatted BIP sent to Luke
jr. He has informed me that such a BIP should be discussed on the mailing
list (which is this thread) and that the BIP should document the extreme
thin block protocol.
Not an unreasonable request, however while I personally respect the many
great accomplishments of individual engineers loosely affiliated with
"Core", Bitcoin Unlimited has our own process for documentation and
discussion on an uncensored forum located here:
https://bitco.in/forum/threads/buip010-passed-xtreme-thinblocks.774/. We
would love to have any interested engineer join us there with ideas and
criticisms.
But since Bitcoin Unlimited already has a process, it would be redundant
and time consuming for us to adhere to your process. If a "Core" engineer
would like to spend the time to move this BIP through your process I would
be eternally grateful and be willing to use a different bit or make other
changes that make mutual sense. If not, then it is up to "Core" as a group
to decide whether they would like to preserve interoperability as the
protocol intended by avoiding use of bit 1<<4 (except to indicate the
presence of a compatible Xthin implementation), or whether they will force
clients to take the sub-version field into account when determining client
capabilities.
Regards,
Andrew Stone
Developer, Bitcoin Unlimited
<pre>
BIP: XXX
Title: Extreme thin block service bit
Author: Andrew Stone <g.andrew.stone at gmail.com>
Status:
Type: Standards Track
Created: 2016-03-07
</pre>
==Abstract==
Nodes need to communicate to each other whether or not thin block
communication messages are supported.
==Motivation==
# Ensure Satoshi client interoperability
==Rationale==
Clients will use this functionality to choose peers, so a service bit is
the most appropriate location.
==Specification==
# Bit (1 << 4) of the nServices flags enum located in protocol.h shall
indicate the ability to handle thin block communication messages.
==Backward compatibility==
All older clients are compatible with this change. Users and merchants
should not be impacted.
==Implementation==
/** nServices flags */
enum {
...
// NODE_XTHIN means the node is capable of and willing to handle Xthin
messages.
NODE_XTHIN = (1 << 4),
...
};
==Copyright==
This document is Public Domain.
On Mon, Mar 7, 2016 at 4:10 PM, dagurval <dagurvj+btclist at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> > Does this functionality change peer selection?
>
> This bit will be used for selecting outgoing peers in Bitcoin XT.
>
> On Mon, Mar 7, 2016 at 9:51 PM, Gregory Maxwell via bitcoin-dev <
> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Mar 7, 2016 at 8:06 PM, G. Andrew Stone via bitcoin-dev
>> <bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> 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.
>> _______________________________________________
>> bitcoin-dev mailing list
>> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20160307/8f3f62c2/attachment-0001.html>;
📝 Original message:Included at the bottom of this mail is a BIP concerning our impending use
of a particular services bit.
I am making a good-faith effort to notify the community of this use and
follow the BIP submission rules with a correctly formatted BIP sent to Luke
jr. He has informed me that such a BIP should be discussed on the mailing
list (which is this thread) and that the BIP should document the extreme
thin block protocol.
Not an unreasonable request, however while I personally respect the many
great accomplishments of individual engineers loosely affiliated with
"Core", Bitcoin Unlimited has our own process for documentation and
discussion on an uncensored forum located here:
https://bitco.in/forum/threads/buip010-passed-xtreme-thinblocks.774/. We
would love to have any interested engineer join us there with ideas and
criticisms.
But since Bitcoin Unlimited already has a process, it would be redundant
and time consuming for us to adhere to your process. If a "Core" engineer
would like to spend the time to move this BIP through your process I would
be eternally grateful and be willing to use a different bit or make other
changes that make mutual sense. If not, then it is up to "Core" as a group
to decide whether they would like to preserve interoperability as the
protocol intended by avoiding use of bit 1<<4 (except to indicate the
presence of a compatible Xthin implementation), or whether they will force
clients to take the sub-version field into account when determining client
capabilities.
Regards,
Andrew Stone
Developer, Bitcoin Unlimited
<pre>
BIP: XXX
Title: Extreme thin block service bit
Author: Andrew Stone <g.andrew.stone at gmail.com>
Status:
Type: Standards Track
Created: 2016-03-07
</pre>
==Abstract==
Nodes need to communicate to each other whether or not thin block
communication messages are supported.
==Motivation==
# Ensure Satoshi client interoperability
==Rationale==
Clients will use this functionality to choose peers, so a service bit is
the most appropriate location.
==Specification==
# Bit (1 << 4) of the nServices flags enum located in protocol.h shall
indicate the ability to handle thin block communication messages.
==Backward compatibility==
All older clients are compatible with this change. Users and merchants
should not be impacted.
==Implementation==
/** nServices flags */
enum {
...
// NODE_XTHIN means the node is capable of and willing to handle Xthin
messages.
NODE_XTHIN = (1 << 4),
...
};
==Copyright==
This document is Public Domain.
On Mon, Mar 7, 2016 at 4:10 PM, dagurval <dagurvj+btclist at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> > Does this functionality change peer selection?
>
> This bit will be used for selecting outgoing peers in Bitcoin XT.
>
> On Mon, Mar 7, 2016 at 9:51 PM, Gregory Maxwell via bitcoin-dev <
> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Mar 7, 2016 at 8:06 PM, G. Andrew Stone via bitcoin-dev
>> <bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> 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.
>> _______________________________________________
>> bitcoin-dev mailing list
>> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20160307/8f3f62c2/attachment-0001.html>;