📅 Original date posted:2017-05-11 📝 Original message:> A peer signaling NODE_NETWORK_LIMITED_LOW & NODE_NETWORK_LIMITED_HIGH MUST > be capable of serving at least the last 7'056 blocks (~49 days) > (NODE_NETWORK_LIMITED_HIGH's value ^2). Is 49 days particularly useful? Would it be a problem to instead leave both- bits undefined? I'm thinking this might be better as a way to indicate "7 days, plus a deterministically chosen set of historical blocks"... > Current Bitcoin-Core pruned full nodes guarantees a minimum of 288 blocks, > thus allowing to signal NODE_NETWORK_LIMITED_LOW with the current minimum > configuration. This is technically true right now, but as soon as segwit activates, it will no longer be... Therefore, I suggest striking it from the BIP, expounding on it in greater detail, or making it true for the longer term. > Peers following this BIP SHOULD connect a limited amount of their available > outbound connections to peers signaling one or both of the > NODE_NETWORK_LIMITED_* service bits if they expect to request less blocks > than the signaled number. This isn't entirely clear whether it refers to peers downloading blocks, or peers serving them. (I assume the former, but it should be clarified.) > Light clients (and such) who are not checking the nServiceFlags (service > bits) from a relayed addr-message may unwillingly connect to a pruned peer > and ask for (filtered) blocks at a depth below their pruned depth. Wouldn't this already be a problem, without the BIP? Luke