Currently GETUTXO is shown in the GUI even though it is not used by Bitcoin Core, but XTHIN is not. Unaware of a reason for this, so therefore this pull request.
Similar to #5876
Show XTHIN in GUI #8583
pull rebroad wants to merge 1 commits into bitcoin:master from rebroad:ShowXTHINinGUI changing 2 files +6 −0-
rebroad commented at 2:24 AM on August 25, 2016: contributor
-
Show XTHIN in GUI 4c3e2cb2df
-
luke-jr commented at 3:37 AM on August 25, 2016: member
FWIW, this is in Knots 0.13.0: 2da1d2832a29ac39e48c90b5b6cc3546989ce628
-
jonasschnelli commented at 6:29 AM on August 25, 2016: contributor
utACK https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8583/commits/4c3e2cb2dfc36d686444b65da1885c380d3643f8
Am I right? There is no BIP for XTHIN? IMO its highly recommended to link the section comments in
protocol.hto some specification papers. - jonasschnelli added the label GUI on Aug 25, 2016
-
rebroad commented at 7:09 AM on August 25, 2016: contributor
@jonasschnelli #5876 makes no reference to a BIP either. Good idea though. Are there BIPS for GETUTXO and XTHIN? As far as I know there's a "BUIP" for XTHIN but not a BIP, but given XTHIN is being used by Classic, Unlimited, Bitcoin XT, to name a few I think it's somewhat redundant (the BIP) now.
-
jonasschnelli commented at 7:18 AM on August 25, 2016: contributor
GETUTXO is described in BIP 64. The only think I could find for XTHIN is https://bitco.in/forum/threads/buip010-passed-xtreme-thinblocks.774/
Not sure if we should add display support if there is no BIP available.
-
gmaxwell commented at 7:20 AM on August 25, 2016: contributor
Give it six months to see if it even exists on the network then. I'm somewhat doubtful it will. (it's not like this display does anything actually useful in any case)
-
laanwj commented at 7:35 AM on August 25, 2016: member
No strong opinion about whether to add this or not, I don't think it really hurts. It's not like the bit can be used for anything else at the moment. If it dies out in six months, it can be removed again.
-
sipa commented at 7:36 AM on August 25, 2016: member
No strong opinion.
-
gmaxwell commented at 7:37 AM on August 25, 2016: contributor
thats true too, mine was a 'meh, don't bother' not a 'no dont'.
-
laanwj commented at 7:40 AM on August 25, 2016: member
Yes, I agree it's a waste of time
-
jonasschnelli commented at 7:47 AM on August 25, 2016: contributor
NACK from my side. I think we should not reserve a service bit for a feature that is available on 19 "good" node (just checked my seeder):
user:~$ cat dnsseed.dump | grep 00000017 | grep " 1 " | wc -l 19 -
MarcoFalke commented at 8:29 AM on August 25, 2016: member
There appears to be a "detailed protocol specification" which is basically the cpp code copied from the implementation after adding some section headings.
-
MarcoFalke commented at 8:32 AM on August 25, 2016: member
utACK 4c3e2cb, but I also agree with @jonasschnelli
-
sipa commented at 9:32 AM on August 25, 2016: member
Code review ACK.
- laanwj merged this on Aug 26, 2016
- laanwj closed this on Aug 26, 2016
- laanwj referenced this in commit c19f8a4a77 on Aug 26, 2016
- codablock referenced this in commit a97c318682 on Sep 19, 2017
- codablock referenced this in commit f881c3c4ce on Jan 9, 2018
- codablock referenced this in commit b00f025dd8 on Jan 9, 2018
- andvgal referenced this in commit 44aab5e6c6 on Jan 6, 2019
- MarcoFalke locked this on Sep 8, 2021
