-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 6
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Preferentially peer with nodes enforcing BIP148 to avoid partitioning risk #24
Conversation
50ef0dc
to
3edeff8
Compare
@@ -275,6 +275,9 @@ enum ServiceFlags : uint64_t { | |||
// collisions and other cases where nodes may be advertising a service they | |||
// do not actually support. Other service bits should be allocated via the | |||
// BIP process. | |||
|
|||
// NODE_BIP148 means the node enforces BIP 148's mandatory Segwit activation beginning August 1, 2017 | |||
NODE_BIP148 = (1 << 27), |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Shouldn't this require an addition to the BIP, or at the very least, a mail to bitcoin-dev as stated in the comment above it? Is choosing a temporary service bit a good idea?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I agree. A mail should be sent.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
utACK 3edeff84a129b875a3e2e0f5af1166acd039557b |
Github-Pull: bitcoin#10532 Rebased-From: cd74a23fcf9588199e196ab31bc64972400c2027
… risk Github-Pull: bitcoin#10532 Rebased-From: e42a2f6beb61df3e3a201804cf3bcce6b00c88ba
3edeff8
to
8c6816f
Compare
Rebased |
utACK |
1 similar comment
utACK |
Straightforward. |
No description provided.