Using service bit 24 for utreexo signaling in testnet and signet
3 messages, 2 Mar 2023. Started by kcalvinalvin.
kcalvinalvin, Luke Dashjr, Peter Todd
Hello all,
Wanted to tell the mailing list that I'll be using service bit 24 (1 << 24) to signal that nodes are Utreexo capable nodes on testnet and signet as requested by the comment in protocol.h in bitcoind (https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/74981aa02d2b14ad1c0b82d1eb09cf3169eaa8ae/src/protocol.h#L295-L301). There are plans to release binaries for the utreexo node (github.com/utreexo/utreexod) in the next few months so that power users can try it out. I have no plans to release binaries for mainnet yet.
Do let me know if someone else is using the same bit to signal for something else and we can coordinate accordingly.
Best, Calvin
This sounds like something that should be written up as a BIP and use a normal service bit assignment...?
Luke
On 3/2/23 01:55, kcalvinalvin via bitcoin-dev wrote:
Quoted text (21 lines)
> Hello all, > > Wanted to tell the mailing list that I'll be using service bit 24 (1 > << 24) to signal that nodes are Utreexo capable nodes on testnet and > signet as requested by the comment in protocol.h in > bitcoind (https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/74981aa02d2b14ad1c0b82d1eb09cf3169eaa8ae/src/protocol.h#L295-L301). > There are plans to release binaries for the utreexo node > (github.com/utreexo/utreexod) in the next few months so that power > users can try it out. I have no plans to release binaries for mainnet > yet. > > Do let me know if someone else is using the same bit to signal for > something else and we can coordinate accordingly. > > Best, > Calvin > > _______________________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation•org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
On March 2, 2023 6:20:35 PM GMT, Luke Dashjr via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation•org> wrote:
Quoted text (1 line)
>This sounds like something that should be written up as a BIP and use a normal service bit assignment...?
The purpose of the experimental service bits is experiments. If the details of utreexo aren't nailed down and may change, an experimental service bit makes sense.
Bit 24 is fine and AFAIK unused at the moment; full-rbf is using bit 26: https://github.com/petertodd/bitcoin/commit/c15b8d70778238abfa751e4216a97140be6369af#diff-8e2ffc8fe0e0847a6aac311a93b2faeebd2d76ddb2c81741bb8cf7448287807eR297
Quoted text (21 lines)
>Luke > > >On 3/2/23 01:55, kcalvinalvin via bitcoin-dev wrote: >> Hello all, >> >> Wanted to tell the mailing list that I'll be using service bit 24 (1 << 24) to signal that nodes are Utreexo capable nodes on testnet and signet as requested by the comment in protocol.h in bitcoind (https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/74981aa02d2b14ad1c0b82d1eb09cf3169eaa8ae/src/protocol.h#L295-L301). There are plans to release binaries for the utreexo node (github.com/utreexo/utreexod) in the next few months so that power users can try it out. I have no plans to release binaries for mainnet yet. >> >> Do let me know if someone else is using the same bit to signal for something else and we can coordinate accordingly. >> >> Best, >> Calvin >> >> _______________________________________________ >> bitcoin-dev mailing list >> bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation•org >> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev >_______________________________________________ >bitcoin-dev mailing list >bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation•org >https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev