📅 Original date posted:2014-06-17
📝 Original message:I wrote a patch for string-based name extensions, circa 2011-2012. I
agree that is preferable to unreadable bits, for reasons you cite.
However, it was noted that extensions (or UUIDs etc.) would not be
propagated around the network in "addr" messages, as service bits are.
On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 3:57 AM, Wladimir <laanwj at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> HPCC Systems Open Source Big Data Platform from LexisNexis Risk Solutions
> Find What Matters Most in Your Big Data with HPCC Systems
> Open Source. Fast. Scalable. Simple. Ideal for Dirty Data.
> Leverages Graph Analysis for Fast Processing & Easy Data Exploration
> http://p.sf.net/sfu/hpccsystems
> _______________________________________________
> Bitcoin-development mailing list
> Bitcoin-development at lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
--
Jeff Garzik
Bitcoin core developer and open source evangelist
BitPay, Inc. https://bitpay.com/
Jeff Garzik [ARCHIVE] /
npub1kf…f3f58
2023-06-07 15:22:58
in reply to nevent1q…srpr
Author Public Key
npub1kf0ppcjaguxekg24yx6smgxlu73qn0k8lm0t2wrqc0scpl7u3sgsmf3f58Seen on
wss://relay.noswhere.comPublished at
2023-06-07 15:22:58Event JSON
{
"id": "253e05b87f06699598a25e46d90171e23b9a20ee72d5e1bdf3d3786ca8ac5f99",
"pubkey": "b25e10e25d470d9b215521b50da0dfe7a209bec7fedeb53860c3e180ffdc8c11",
"created_at": 1686151378,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"51755e520e5fac5e694b75add8f1aed031a6d31795ec0eb481e5e52e0d57e975",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"08efc1f5cfac912b58617dba3c40b776b5be6ad889aba8f3002dbb4b4371f0e6",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"30217b018a47b99ed4c20399b44b02f70ec4f58ed77a2814a563fa28322ef722"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2014-06-17\n📝 Original message:I wrote a patch for string-based name extensions, circa 2011-2012. I\nagree that is preferable to unreadable bits, for reasons you cite.\n\nHowever, it was noted that extensions (or UUIDs etc.) would not be\npropagated around the network in \"addr\" messages, as service bits are.\n\nOn Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 3:57 AM, Wladimir \u003claanwj at gmail.com\u003e wrote:\n\u003e On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 9:23 AM, Peter Todd \u003cpete at petertodd.org\u003e wrote:\n\u003e\n\u003e\u003e Alternately Wladimir J. van der Laan brought up elsewhere(2) the\n\u003e\u003e possibility for a wider notion of an extension namespace. I'm personally\n\u003e\u003e not convinced of the short-term need - we've got 64 service bits yet\n\u003e\u003e NODE_BLOOM is the first fully fleshed out proposal to use one - but it's\n\u003e\u003e worth thinking about for the long term\n\u003e\n\u003e Yes, as I said in the github topic\n\u003e (https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/4351) I suggest we adapt a\n\u003e string-based name space for extensions.\n\u003e\n\u003e A new network version could add a command 'getextensions' to query the\n\u003e supported extensions, returning a list of extension strings or\n\u003e (extension,version) pairs. For BIPs some something like 'BIP0064'\n\u003e could be defined, but for an experiment for example\n\u003e 'experimental-getutxo'. This would be easy to implement and specify.\n\u003e\n\u003e Unlike with the 64 service bits it does not require (as much) central\n\u003e coordination to assign as there is no real danger of collisions. It\n\u003e takes the political aspect out of P2P network extensions, and gives\n\u003e more freedom to alternative implementations to experiment with their\n\u003e own extensions. And no more need for bitcoin core to drive what must\n\u003e be supported with increasing network versions.\n\u003e\n\u003e Wladimir\n\u003e\n\u003e ------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\u003e HPCC Systems Open Source Big Data Platform from LexisNexis Risk Solutions\n\u003e Find What Matters Most in Your Big Data with HPCC Systems\n\u003e Open Source. Fast. Scalable. Simple. Ideal for Dirty Data.\n\u003e Leverages Graph Analysis for Fast Processing \u0026 Easy Data Exploration\n\u003e http://p.sf.net/sfu/hpccsystems\n\u003e _______________________________________________\n\u003e Bitcoin-development mailing list\n\u003e Bitcoin-development at lists.sourceforge.net\n\u003e https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development\n\n\n\n-- \nJeff Garzik\nBitcoin core developer and open source evangelist\nBitPay, Inc. https://bitpay.com/",
"sig": "3346dad06191dbe714eaf95bb783f6487d75befd1ee0030da37f6dba9789e82eab75382d49c4b7439abc47a4bccd9a4a7b78ff47428546875be47782f0210311"
}