On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 11:29 PM, Jeff Garzik <jgar...@bitpay.com> wrote: > 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.
Thanks for letting me know, I didn't remember your patch. Ugh, yes, propagating all extensions in `addr` messages is not how I imagined this to work. But then there would need to be an alternative way to discover nodes that offer a certain extension. Alas, this moves it from a straightforward and common sense change to a significant change to the protocol. 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@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
