Re: [bitcoin-dev] Services bit for xthin blocks

On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 6:11 PM, G. Andrew Stone via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > Thanks for your offer Luke, but we are happy with our own process and, > regardless of historical provenance, see this mailing list and the BIP > process as very Core specific for

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Services bit for xthin blocks

Thanks for your offer Luke, but we are happy with our own process and, regardless of historical provenance, see this mailing list and the BIP process as very Core specific for reasons that are too numerous to describe here but should be obvious to anyone who has been aware of the last year of

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Services bit for xthin blocks

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@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > On Mon, Mar 7, 2016 at 8:06 PM, G. Andrew Stone via

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Services bit for xthin blocks

I think a BIP is a good idea, but rather than making such a specific proposal as "Let's use bit 4 to indicate communication of thin blocks," how about a more general one like "Let's use bit(s?) 4(-5?) as user-agent specific service bits so that if you customize your user-agent string, you can use

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Services bit for xthin blocks

On Mon, Mar 7, 2016 at 8:06 PM, G. Andrew Stone via bitcoin-dev 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

[bitcoin-dev] Services bit for xthin blocks

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. Andrew ___ bitcoin-dev mailing list