-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 5.5k
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
BIP159 updates #1768
BIP159 updates #1768
Conversation
0617b31
to
1b17eea
Compare
Did another pass and seems ready for review. |
1b17eea
to
b680873
Compare
Updated the second commit per review feedback: 1b17eea..b680873 |
(I might propose adding a changelog to this BIP if this moves forward.) |
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.
Good clean-up on the text, but I think I understand the service signals differently than you. Given that NODE_NETWORK_LIMITED
indicates being able to at least serve 288 blocks, it seems perfectly compatible with also signaling NODE_NETWORK
.
b680873
to
b3e6e24
Compare
Updated to take the feedback from @jonasschnelli and @murchandamus (thanks!) and it looks much better. Please let me know what you think. |
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.
ACK b3e6e24
Good improvement, one optional nit, if you feel like taking it.
e.g. that NODE_NETWORK is not set See reference implementation bitcoin/bitcoin#10387 and this comment in that pull bitcoin/bitcoin#10387 (comment)
Not the same meaning, so not a purely editorial fixup, but I think "unwittingly" expresses the intended meaning.
b3e6e24
to
22f7f04
Compare
Thanks @jonasschnelli and @murchandamus for the second round of review. Took your suggestions, added a missing |
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.
ACK 22f7f04
One optional elaboration
ACK d44f70e |
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.
LGTM, thanks for working on this.
A few clarifications following a discussion with BIP author Jonas Schnelli yesterday and then thanks to review feedback from both Jonas and Murch.
These are compatible with the reference implementation in the BIP and with the current implementation in Bitcoin Core.
It is worthwhile to read the discussion in reference implementation bitcoin/bitcoin#10387 (particularly bitcoin/bitcoin#10387 (comment)).