📅 Original date posted:2014-08-08
📝 Original message:On Fri, Aug 8, 2014 at 12:15 PM, Wladimir <laanwj at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 8, 2014 at 12:01 PM, Mike Hearn <mike at plan99.net> 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
Wladimir [ARCHIVE] /
npub1xq…ymc2p
2023-06-07 15:25:03
in reply to nevent1q…j277
Author Public Key
npub1xqshkqv2g7uea4xzqwvmgjcz7u8vfavw6aazs999v0azsv3w7u3qpymc2pPublished at
2023-06-07 15:25:03Event JSON
{
"id": "d22bc57f5af9101066c835dcdf7a51414ceda6eeb4eeb92464260b5d96b12c22",
"pubkey": "30217b018a47b99ed4c20399b44b02f70ec4f58ed77a2814a563fa28322ef722",
"created_at": 1686151503,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"1469c70b65b3d566e17429f93d31db1fc95b8cc6ebff3a3c5370afa0b4c5b71b",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"0e6de3f7cb254ab8dd6dbb911c3acf4f42a5160ad6b8c915e9372baedff6f2eb",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"30217b018a47b99ed4c20399b44b02f70ec4f58ed77a2814a563fa28322ef722"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2014-08-08\n📝 Original message:On Fri, Aug 8, 2014 at 12:15 PM, Wladimir \u003claanwj at gmail.com\u003e wrote:\n\u003e On Fri, Aug 8, 2014 at 12:01 PM, Mike Hearn \u003cmike at plan99.net\u003e wrote:\n\u003e\u003e\u003e He wants to use it to advertise services that are not part of the P2P\n\u003e\u003e\u003e protocol itself, but run on a different port. Reserving services bits\n\u003e\u003e\u003e for those is not acceptable.\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e Why not? Does the port matter much?\n\u003e\n\u003e Yes. The services bits are for advertising services on the P2P\n\u003e network. That's not open for discussion.\n\nIt also wouldn't work. A bit is not enough to find an external service\nexcept in the naive case where the advertised service would have a\nfixed port. Not even bitcoind has a fixed port. So there needs to be a\nmechanism to find how to connect to the 'external service'. This is\nprovided by the proposed extension.\n\nIt would in principle be possible to advertise an extra service bit\n*in addition to* this one, to make it easier to find through the addr\nmechanism. But it would be confusing and IMO an abuse of P2P service\nbits.\n\nWladimir",
"sig": "1d2242f5682d9c841c5ce83816cc86ee741bca8259f7a54df350a4dcd11457b7b68888760f39dd0a0dc45c3ddc77c64f4460e59a3062acf17880866dad55bf3e"
}