diff options
author | Eric Lombrozo <elombrozo@gmail.com> | 2015-08-24 18:15:39 +0000 |
---|---|---|
committer | bitcoindev <bitcoindev@gnusha.org> | 2015-08-24 18:15:49 +0000 |
commit | a4deb7f791c3463c0c7a3be32cabc3be0ecc85d6 (patch) | |
tree | 3adaba3c340edff9755e36f91d1a0239c2add6a5 | |
parent | 4f483f49f9bf5f16104d0ff1c50d32b3c8f0a939 (diff) | |
download | pi-bitcoindev-a4deb7f791c3463c0c7a3be32cabc3be0ecc85d6.tar.gz pi-bitcoindev-a4deb7f791c3463c0c7a3be32cabc3be0ecc85d6.zip |
Re: [bitcoin-dev] Revisiting NODE_BLOOM: Proposed BIP
-rw-r--r-- | 30/c52a26f3e493e9493e333e85ffcaf3d16fca38 | 151 |
1 files changed, 151 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/30/c52a26f3e493e9493e333e85ffcaf3d16fca38 b/30/c52a26f3e493e9493e333e85ffcaf3d16fca38 new file mode 100644 index 000000000..0cbadde09 --- /dev/null +++ b/30/c52a26f3e493e9493e333e85ffcaf3d16fca38 @@ -0,0 +1,151 @@ +Return-Path: <elombrozo@gmail.com> +Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org + [172.17.192.35]) + by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B300A9CA + for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>; + Mon, 24 Aug 2015 18:15:49 +0000 (UTC) +X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 +Received: from mail-ig0-f174.google.com (mail-ig0-f174.google.com + [209.85.213.174]) + by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4811B1B7 + for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>; + Mon, 24 Aug 2015 18:15:49 +0000 (UTC) +Received: by igfj19 with SMTP id j19so62576306igf.1 + for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>; + Mon, 24 Aug 2015 11:15:48 -0700 (PDT) +DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; + h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to + :cc:content-type; + bh=xxrGbEJfX69+YDTCvCuoTaxGsjUqWbpylQvtmZlCwWI=; + b=lAhQ1EB1mrMH7Tm5bGHIpHWcAwUo8wGiAuSoN22HkW/hjelUqAswWHSunr81VHo8DJ + iTZq9iuFKyoLRlaOUhkNYqLHkwkgtN8lrVXbGHcAJcv+I3NS2ZXuAgzTvTGBR0n3iuA9 + bYmDzdIAtVIVJwRNnfzjUYHREcjEImPap48op2D/bDhLerIcSxAz+wqDSLXak/wskUCc + bh/aWtjnf2AS6TCvd9Wo5V26GKRg8Y0tLiWkFpF6u5z9saKyDuaggoluj74OsWhny+Ua + jRgwGBKN/2jpOZEYCU6NpJR/Sm8oyiVc6D6KMCpOAoRrJrHCbkUOBODj99hZZnnXPT+V + YbLw== +X-Received: by 10.50.153.112 with SMTP id vf16mr16213891igb.79.1440440148723; + Mon, 24 Aug 2015 11:15:48 -0700 (PDT) +MIME-Version: 1.0 +References: <55D6AD19.10305@mattcorallo.com> + <20150824152955.GA6924@amethyst.visucore.com> + <55DB566F.1010702@mattcorallo.com> <20150824180044.GA5729@muck> + <55DB5D49.4050800@mattcorallo.com> +In-Reply-To: <55DB5D49.4050800@mattcorallo.com> +From: Eric Lombrozo <elombrozo@gmail.com> +Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2015 18:15:39 +0000 +Message-ID: <CABr1YTceCUPSwUe9M2zUSXcB1qvtmq5PP6=ZBzaw19=VgO79GQ@mail.gmail.com> +To: Matt Corallo <lf-lists@mattcorallo.com>, Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org> +Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e01536c1062914e051e129b5e +X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, + DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW + autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 +X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on + smtp1.linux-foundation.org +Cc: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org +Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Revisiting NODE_BLOOM: Proposed BIP +X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org +X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 +Precedence: list +List-Id: Bitcoin Development Discussion <bitcoin-dev.lists.linuxfoundation.org> +List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/options/bitcoin-dev>, + <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=unsubscribe> +List-Archive: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/> +List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> +List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=help> +List-Subscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev>, + <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=subscribe> +X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2015 18:15:49 -0000 + +--089e01536c1062914e051e129b5e +Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 + +It would be very useful to not only be able to switch filtering on and off +globally...but to be able to switch on a per-connection basis. But then +again, perhaps it would be smarter to ditch the whole bloom filter thing in +favor of an actual client/server architecture with proper authentication +and access controls. + +The RPC was supposed to be this client/server architecture...but in +practice it sucks so bad for doing anything beyond administering a node +instance you fully control yourself that I eschewed it entirely in my +wallet design. + +On Mon, Aug 24, 2015, 11:07 AM Matt Corallo via bitcoin-dev < +bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: + +> BIP 111 was assigned, pull request (with the proposed changes) available +> at https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/183 +> +> Matt +> +> On 08/24/15 18:00, Peter Todd wrote: +> > On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 05:37:51PM +0000, Matt Corallo via bitcoin-dev +> wrote: +> >> Its more of a statement of "in the future, we expect things to happen +> >> which would make this an interesting thing to do, so we state here that +> >> it is not against spec to do so". Could reword it as "NODE_BLOOM is +> >> distinct from NODE_NETWORK, and it is legal to advertise NODE_BLOOM but +> >> not NODE_NETWORK (though there is little reason to do so now, some +> >> proposals may make this more useful in the future)"? +> > +> > ACK +> > +> _______________________________________________ +> bitcoin-dev mailing list +> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org +> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev +> + +--089e01536c1062914e051e129b5e +Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 +Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable + +<p dir=3D"ltr">It would be very useful to not only be able to switch filter= +ing on and off globally...but to be able to switch on a per-connection basi= +s. But then again, perhaps it would be smarter to ditch the whole bloom fil= +ter thing in favor of an actual client/server architecture with proper auth= +entication and access controls.</p> +<p dir=3D"ltr">The RPC was supposed to be this client/server architecture..= +.but in practice it sucks so bad for doing anything beyond administering a = +node instance you fully control yourself that I eschewed it entirely in my = +wallet design.<br> +</p> +<br><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><div dir=3D"ltr">On Mon, Aug 24, 2015, 11:07= + AM=C2=A0Matt Corallo via bitcoin-dev <<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lis= +ts.linuxfoundation.org">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a>> wrote= +:<br></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;bor= +der-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">BIP 111 was assigned, pull reques= +t (with the proposed changes) available<br> +at <a href=3D"https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/183" rel=3D"noreferrer" = +target=3D"_blank">https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/183</a><br> +<br> +Matt<br> +<br> +On 08/24/15 18:00, Peter Todd wrote:<br> +> On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 05:37:51PM +0000, Matt Corallo via bitcoin-dev= + wrote:<br> +>> Its more of a statement of "in the future, we expect things t= +o happen<br> +>> which would make this an interesting thing to do, so we state here= + that<br> +>> it is not against spec to do so". Could reword it as "NO= +DE_BLOOM is<br> +>> distinct from NODE_NETWORK, and it is legal to advertise NODE_BLOO= +M but<br> +>> not NODE_NETWORK (though there is little reason to do so now, some= +<br> +>> proposals may make this more useful in the future)"?<br> +><br> +> ACK<br> +><br> +_______________________________________________<br> +bitcoin-dev mailing list<br> +<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" target=3D"_blank">= +bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a><br> +<a href=3D"https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev" = +rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mail= +man/listinfo/bitcoin-dev</a><br> +</blockquote></div> + +--089e01536c1062914e051e129b5e-- + |