📅 Original date posted:2014-06-17
📝 Original message:On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 9:23 AM, Peter Todd <pete at petertodd.org> wrote:
> Alternately Wladimir J. van der Laan brought up elsewhere(2) the
> possibility for a wider notion of an extension namespace. I'm personally
> not convinced of the short-term need - we've got 64 service bits yet
> NODE_BLOOM is the first fully fleshed out proposal to use one - but it's
> worth thinking about for the long term
Yes, as I said in the github topic
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/4351) I suggest we adapt a
string-based name space for extensions.
A new network version could add a command 'getextensions' to query the
supported extensions, returning a list of extension strings or
(extension,version) pairs. For BIPs some something like 'BIP0064'
could be defined, but for an experiment for example
'experimental-getutxo'. This would be easy to implement and specify.
Unlike with the 64 service bits it does not require (as much) central
coordination to assign as there is no real danger of collisions. It
takes the political aspect out of P2P network extensions, and gives
more freedom to alternative implementations to experiment with their
own extensions. And no more need for bitcoin core to drive what must
be supported with increasing network versions.
Wladimir
Wladimir [ARCHIVE] /
npub1xq…ymc2p
2023-06-07 15:22:57
in reply to nevent1q…v4gp
Author Public Key
npub1xqshkqv2g7uea4xzqwvmgjcz7u8vfavw6aazs999v0azsv3w7u3qpymc2pSeen on
wss://relay.nostr.bandPublished at
2023-06-07 15:22:57Event JSON
{
"id": "b74d50421a20124f348b4ce3e9efc046563aaef076cfccecee3fd136ed1df520",
"pubkey": "30217b018a47b99ed4c20399b44b02f70ec4f58ed77a2814a563fa28322ef722",
"created_at": 1686151377,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"51755e520e5fac5e694b75add8f1aed031a6d31795ec0eb481e5e52e0d57e975",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"3ea1b60ef4fb944aacda5627f225710d44cc97f0e616436410fcaf400e6bf893",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"daa2fc676a25e3b5b45644540bcbd1e1168b111427cd0e3cf19c56194fb231aa"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2014-06-17\n📝 Original message:On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 9:23 AM, Peter Todd \u003cpete at petertodd.org\u003e wrote:\n\n\u003e Alternately Wladimir J. van der Laan brought up elsewhere(2) the\n\u003e possibility for a wider notion of an extension namespace. I'm personally\n\u003e not convinced of the short-term need - we've got 64 service bits yet\n\u003e NODE_BLOOM is the first fully fleshed out proposal to use one - but it's\n\u003e worth thinking about for the long term\n\nYes, as I said in the github topic\n(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/4351) I suggest we adapt a\nstring-based name space for extensions.\n\nA new network version could add a command 'getextensions' to query the\nsupported extensions, returning a list of extension strings or\n(extension,version) pairs. For BIPs some something like 'BIP0064'\ncould be defined, but for an experiment for example\n'experimental-getutxo'. This would be easy to implement and specify.\n\nUnlike with the 64 service bits it does not require (as much) central\ncoordination to assign as there is no real danger of collisions. It\ntakes the political aspect out of P2P network extensions, and gives\nmore freedom to alternative implementations to experiment with their\nown extensions. And no more need for bitcoin core to drive what must\nbe supported with increasing network versions.\n\nWladimir",
"sig": "73f4461ece64494e3b233547076bc33c41533d94adec71f8e063dcc927b6d1f60ec9920a88742f160201219a6deb739f9687341a3900d7b6a46b9b8ebfd05679"
}