On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 10:24 AM, Jeff Garzik <jgar...@exmulti.com> wrote: > My only response is a weak one: inevitability. It seems likely that > -somebody- will implement their own P2P commands for their own client > subset, even if only a simple "use 'getstatus' with strSubVer matching > /FooClient/" > > Therefore, if it is inevitable, we might as well make some basic rules > about how to extended your P2P command set.
I'm not opposed to that logic. But for cases where an introduction mechanism will be needed... it would be awfully good to have one, and I do think that there is harm in making people think that simple services negotiation will actually work for their needs for cases where a separate p2p network is needed. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ _______________________________________________ Bitcoin-development mailing list Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
