Received: from sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.192] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-2.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1UWUvH-0007SX-Ov for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Sun, 28 Apr 2013 16:57:59 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com designates 209.85.214.180 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.214.180; envelope-from=mh.in.england@gmail.com; helo=mail-ob0-f180.google.com; Received: from mail-ob0-f180.google.com ([209.85.214.180]) by sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1UWUvG-00060T-W8 for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Sun, 28 Apr 2013 16:57:59 +0000 Received: by mail-ob0-f180.google.com with SMTP id uk5so4903905obc.11 for ; Sun, 28 Apr 2013 09:57:53 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.60.14.226 with SMTP id s2mr27316561oec.124.1367168273646; Sun, 28 Apr 2013 09:57:53 -0700 (PDT) Sender: mh.in.england@gmail.com Received: by 10.76.167.169 with HTTP; Sun, 28 Apr 2013 09:57:53 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Sun, 28 Apr 2013 18:57:53 +0200 X-Google-Sender-Auth: hUXvGOxcZJi5J5TVrInVu_AqrkI Message-ID: From: Mike Hearn To: Pieter Wuille Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=e89a8fb1f9c44c8bf304db6eab25 X-Spam-Score: -0.5 (/) X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net. See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details. -1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for sender-domain 0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider (mh.in.england[at]gmail.com) -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record 1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message 0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not necessarily valid -0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature X-Headers-End: 1UWUvG-00060T-W8 Cc: Bitcoin Dev Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Service bits for pruned nodes X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 28 Apr 2013 16:57:59 -0000 --e89a8fb1f9c44c8bf304db6eab25 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 That's true. It can be perhaps be represented as "I keep the last N blocks" and then most likely for any given node the policy doesn't change all that fast, so if you know the best chain height you can calculate which nodes have what. > Disconnecting in case something is requested that isn't served seems like > an acceptable behaviour, yes. A specific message indicating data is pruned > may be more flexible, but more complex to handle too. > Well, old nodes would ignore it and new nodes wouldn't need it? > The reason for splitting them is that I think over time these may be > handled by different implementations. You could have stupid > storage/bandwidth nodes that just keep the blockchain around, and others > that validate it. Even if that doesn't happen implementation-wise, I think > these are sufficiently independent functions to start thinking about them > as such. > Maybe so, with a "last N blocks" in addr messages though such nodes could just set their advertised history to zero and not have to deal with serving blocks to nodes. If you have a node that serves the chain but doesn't validate it, how does it know what the best chain is? Just whatever the hardest is? --e89a8fb1f9c44c8bf304db6eab25 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
That's true. It can be perhaps be represented as "I keep the last= N blocks" and then most likely for any given node the policy doesn= 9;t change all that fast, so if you know the best chain height you can calc= ulate which nodes have what.
=C2=A0
Disconnecting in case something is= requested that isn't served seems like an acceptable behaviour, yes. A= specific message indicating data is pruned may be more flexible, but more = complex to handle too.=C2=A0

Well, old no= des would ignore it and new nodes wouldn't need it?
=C2=A0
The reason for splitting them is t= hat I think over time these may be handled by different implementations. Yo= u could have stupid storage/bandwidth nodes that just keep the blockchain a= round, and others that validate it. Even if that doesn't happen impleme= ntation-wise, I think these are sufficiently independent functions to start= thinking about them as such.

Maybe so, wi= th a "last N blocks" in addr messages though such nodes could jus= t set their advertised history to zero and not have to deal with serving bl= ocks to nodes.

If you have a node that serves the chain bu= t doesn't validate it, how does it know what the best chain is? Just wh= atever the hardest is?
--e89a8fb1f9c44c8bf304db6eab25--