--- Log opened Wed Jun 23 00:00:46 2021
03:36 -!- stevenroose [~steven@2001:19f0:6801:83a:ec57:5e94:994a:afff] has quit [Quit: ZNC 1.7.4 - https://znc.in]
03:36 -!- stevenroose [~steven@2001:19f0:6801:83a:d5d9:4321:5b93:c47b] has joined #utreexo
06:14 -!- pigeons [~pigeons@androzani.sysevolve.com] has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds]
06:16 -!- pigeons [~pigeons@androzani.sysevolve.com] has joined #utreexo
10:23 < dergoegge> > the extra message because the bridge node will serve normal bitcoin nodes as well
10:23 < dergoegge> it could still do that without an extra msg because it knows if a node wants the proofs or not looking at the service bit.
10:23 < dergoegge> i was just looking at the core code and its pretty straight forward to just append the proofs when sending blocks to a utreexo node. (not sure if this would translate to btcd)
10:23 < dergoegge> this is not tested but something like this: https://github.com/dergoegge/bitcoin/commit/bdad32f284736bf1f0bd5bd3ff2a9bceedb9f35a
10:23 < dergoegge> i think we talked about this in a meeting at some point. i didnt have a strong opinion back then but now looking at the core code it seems cleaner to do without a separate message
10:23 < dergoegge> > NODE_UTREEXO service flag to find utreexo specific nodes in the wild
10:23 < dergoegge> but why two of them? https://github.com/mit-dci/utcd/blob/79580a7e86cd6505f5c386ac755009cd90f3dd70/wire/protocol.go#L90-L92
10:24 < dergoegge> > Ok urm what should we use
10:24 < dergoegge> i picked 1 << 29 at random as a placeholder for now
10:27 < dergoegge> > I guess it's about time we standardize some p2p stuff :)
10:27 < dergoegge> seems like it yeah :D
10:27 < dergoegge> I have a week off work next week, hope to be productive then
--- Log closed Thu Jun 24 00:00:48 2021