📅 Original date posted:2014-08-08
📝 Original message:>
> 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?
> All the NODE_EXT_SERVICES bit does is advertise the P2P "getextsrv"
> command to get information, such as the port to connect on, for the
> auxilary service.
Yes, I understand what it does, but from a clients perspective what it
means is if someone implements a useful service and exposes it this way you
have to seek out, connect to and interrogate every possible server even if
(say) only a handful actually provide it. The most there's >1 "ext service"
the protocol becomes extremely slow, vs service bits where you can download
addr packets and see which IPs are advertising which services.
I don't see much reason to take a potentially large performance hit when
there's a service advertisement mechanism that already works. What's wrong
with the existing mechanism exactly?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20140808/82a3c8bf/attachment.html>;
Mike Hearn [ARCHIVE] /
npub17t…4qgyd
2023-06-07 15:25:03
in reply to nevent1q…mv0f
Author Public Key
npub17ty4mumkv43w8wtt0xsz2jypck0gvw0j8xrcg6tpea25z2nh7meqf4qgydPublished at
2023-06-07 15:25:03Event JSON
{
"id": "8cb7e2774016a4f290c03a0b68310ae7f691f3f99fa41e5ae03554fdea309834",
"pubkey": "f2c95df3766562e3b96b79a0254881c59e8639f23987846961cf55412a77f6f2",
"created_at": 1686151503,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"1469c70b65b3d566e17429f93d31db1fc95b8cc6ebff3a3c5370afa0b4c5b71b",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"782c0f42ea0100bbf6347800697630dd9c1d12cd818dda9d2a4098056ae3e91f",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"30217b018a47b99ed4c20399b44b02f70ec4f58ed77a2814a563fa28322ef722"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2014-08-08\n📝 Original message:\u003e\n\u003e He wants to use it to advertise services that are not part of the P2P\n\u003e protocol itself, but run on a different port. Reserving services bits\n\u003e for those is not acceptable.\n\u003e\n\nWhy not? Does the port matter much?\n\n\n\u003e All the NODE_EXT_SERVICES bit does is advertise the P2P \"getextsrv\"\n\u003e command to get information, such as the port to connect on, for the\n\u003e auxilary service.\n\n\nYes, I understand what it does, but from a clients perspective what it\nmeans is if someone implements a useful service and exposes it this way you\nhave to seek out, connect to and interrogate every possible server even if\n(say) only a handful actually provide it. The most there's \u003e1 \"ext service\"\nthe protocol becomes extremely slow, vs service bits where you can download\naddr packets and see which IPs are advertising which services.\n\nI don't see much reason to take a potentially large performance hit when\nthere's a service advertisement mechanism that already works. What's wrong\nwith the existing mechanism exactly?\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20140808/82a3c8bf/attachment.html\u003e",
"sig": "64e95d29b084237f235aa5fb8a4e1ee90c23eab063f295f412a1e24c5be75b0967ada64f96b05e7031c8e6cb30c83b4cd4ee853176d4ff0a94c3a622a78c5629"
}