📅 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>;
G. Andrew Stone [ARCHIVE] /
npub1ts…9cyxz
2023-06-07 17:49:42
in reply to nevent1q…mezf
Author Public Key
npub1tsl0vdp4gegx6p7m073lphfl7zcrctud0qhutzf63up2h6r2kdcq99cyxzPublished at
2023-06-07 17:49:42Event JSON
{
"id": "f6c98e298dcc837f88294b8f1074eb1530146ea05bc13df0a47126e88b3c06db",
"pubkey": "5c3ef6343546506d07db7fa3f0dd3ff0b03c2f8d782fc5893a8f02abe86ab370",
"created_at": 1686160182,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"8518067b315b80d16053b7f5c06f2997d9baea5afb6176cc41b69ff386035bdc",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"cbfc06188e4aac2ec385a9f05ae7f7567e6751db7b611f8ff80e3467eae31271",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"e0448d9ff2a4aab3372d1352a42d6d73e27c37cfeb01574401a185d34adc079d"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2016-03-08\n📝 Original message:Included at the bottom of this mail is a BIP concerning our impending use\nof a particular services bit.\n\nI am making a good-faith effort to notify the community of this use and\nfollow the BIP submission rules with a correctly formatted BIP sent to Luke\njr. He has informed me that such a BIP should be discussed on the mailing\nlist (which is this thread) and that the BIP should document the extreme\nthin block protocol.\n\nNot an unreasonable request, however while I personally respect the many\ngreat accomplishments of individual engineers loosely affiliated with\n\"Core\", Bitcoin Unlimited has our own process for documentation and\ndiscussion on an uncensored forum located here:\nhttps://bitco.in/forum/threads/buip010-passed-xtreme-thinblocks.774/. We\nwould love to have any interested engineer join us there with ideas and\ncriticisms.\n\nBut since Bitcoin Unlimited already has a process, it would be redundant\nand time consuming for us to adhere to your process. If a \"Core\" engineer\nwould like to spend the time to move this BIP through your process I would\nbe eternally grateful and be willing to use a different bit or make other\nchanges that make mutual sense. If not, then it is up to \"Core\" as a group\nto decide whether they would like to preserve interoperability as the\nprotocol intended by avoiding use of bit 1\u003c\u003c4 (except to indicate the\npresence of a compatible Xthin implementation), or whether they will force\nclients to take the sub-version field into account when determining client\ncapabilities.\n\nRegards,\nAndrew Stone\nDeveloper, Bitcoin Unlimited\n\n\n\u003cpre\u003e\n BIP: XXX\n Title: Extreme thin block service bit\n Author: Andrew Stone \u003cg.andrew.stone at gmail.com\u003e\n Status:\n Type: Standards Track\n Created: 2016-03-07\n\u003c/pre\u003e\n\n==Abstract==\n\nNodes need to communicate to each other whether or not thin block\ncommunication messages are supported.\n\n==Motivation==\n\n# Ensure Satoshi client interoperability\n\n==Rationale==\n\nClients will use this functionality to choose peers, so a service bit is\nthe most appropriate location.\n\n==Specification==\n\n# Bit (1 \u003c\u003c 4) of the nServices flags enum located in protocol.h shall\nindicate the ability to handle thin block communication messages.\n\n==Backward compatibility==\n\nAll older clients are compatible with this change. Users and merchants\nshould not be impacted.\n\n==Implementation==\n\n/** nServices flags */\nenum {\n ...\n // NODE_XTHIN means the node is capable of and willing to handle Xthin\nmessages.\n NODE_XTHIN = (1 \u003c\u003c 4),\n ...\n};\n\n==Copyright==\nThis document is Public Domain.\n\nOn Mon, Mar 7, 2016 at 4:10 PM, dagurval \u003cdagurvj+btclist at gmail.com\u003e wrote:\n\n\u003e Hi,\n\u003e\n\u003e \u003e Does this functionality change peer selection?\n\u003e\n\u003e This bit will be used for selecting outgoing peers in Bitcoin XT.\n\u003e\n\u003e On Mon, Mar 7, 2016 at 9:51 PM, Gregory Maxwell via bitcoin-dev \u003c\n\u003e bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e wrote:\n\u003e\n\u003e\u003e On Mon, Mar 7, 2016 at 8:06 PM, G. Andrew Stone via bitcoin-dev\n\u003e\u003e \u003cbitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e wrote:\n\u003e\u003e \u003e The Bitcoin Unlimited client needs a services bit to indicate that the\n\u003e\u003e node\n\u003e\u003e \u003e is capable of communicating thin blocks. We propose to use bit 4 as\n\u003e\u003e AFAIK\n\u003e\u003e \u003e bit 3 is already earmarked for Segregated Witness.\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e Does this functionality change peer selection? If not, the preferred\n\u003e\u003e signaling mechanism is probably the one in BIP 130.\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e Otherwise, I think the standard method for getting numbers has been to\n\u003e\u003e write a BIP documenting the usage. I don't know if that is intentional\n\u003e\u003e or just how things have previously happened; and I don't have much of\n\u003e\u003e an opinion on it.\n\u003e\u003e _______________________________________________\n\u003e\u003e bitcoin-dev mailing list\n\u003e\u003e bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\n\u003e\u003e https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20160307/8f3f62c2/attachment-0001.html\u003e",
"sig": "ad5ea16fba99785f576145451578178220f709da56e7e4c21ffd2b8dca223733d9cad91510ba6a8c8f699d78c9c3ceb85d96a29d394a826a880154ffef028c49"
}