Received: from sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.194]
	helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
	by sfs-ml-4.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
	(envelope-from <ricardojdfilipe@gmail.com>) id 1UcwKo-0007QI-F7
	for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
	Thu, 16 May 2013 11:26:58 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
	designates 209.85.215.49 as permitted sender)
	client-ip=209.85.215.49; envelope-from=ricardojdfilipe@gmail.com;
	helo=mail-la0-f49.google.com; 
Received: from mail-la0-f49.google.com ([209.85.215.49])
	by sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
	(Exim 4.76) id 1UcwKm-000738-Lt
	for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
	Thu, 16 May 2013 11:26:58 +0000
Received: by mail-la0-f49.google.com with SMTP id fp13so2256179lab.36
	for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
	Thu, 16 May 2013 04:26:50 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.152.120.40 with SMTP id kz8mr20176115lab.30.1368703609932;
	Thu, 16 May 2013 04:26:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.112.127.34 with HTTP; Thu, 16 May 2013 04:26:49 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Thu, 16 May 2013 12:26:49 +0100
Message-ID: <CALC81CNMTWhAQ8VSxToGcSPeJmfFJrANrdXONseTq1=WKm4=7w@mail.gmail.com>
From: Ricardo Filipe <ricardojdfilipe@gmail.com>
To: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Spam-Score: -1.6 (-)
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
	(ricardojdfilipe[at]gmail.com)
	-0.0 SPF_PASS               SPF: sender matches SPF record
	-0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from
	author's domain
	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: 1UcwKm-000738-Lt
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: <bitcoin-development.lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
	<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_name=bitcoin-development>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
	<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 16 May 2013 11:26:58 -0000

We would only end up with few copies of the historic data if users
could choose what parts of the blockchain to store. Simply store
chunks randomly, according to users available space, and give priority
to the "N most recent" chunks to have more replicas in the network.

You don't need bittorrent specifically for a DHT, if publicity is a
problem. There are many DHT proposals and implementations, and i bet
one of them should be more suitable to the bitcoin network than
bittorrent's.

>On Sun, Apr 28, 2013 at 9:29 AM, Mike Hearn <mike@...> wrote:
>> I'd imagined that nodes would be able to pick their own ranges to keep
>> rather than have fixed chosen intervals. "Everything or two weeks" is ra=
ther
>
>X most recent is special for two reasons:  It meshes well with actual dema=
nd,
>and the data is required for reorganization.
>
>So whatever we do for historic data, N most recent should be treated speci=
ally.
>
>But I also agree that its important that <everything> be splittable into r=
anges
>because otherwise when having to choose between serving historic data
>and=97 say=97 40 GB storage, a great many are going to choose not to serve
>historic data... and so nodes may be willing to contribute 4-39 GB storage
>to the network there will be no good way for them to do so and we may end
>up with too few copies of the historic data available.
>
>As can be seen in the graph, once you get past the most recent 4000
>blocks the probability is fairly uniform... so "N most recent" is not a
>good way to divide load for the older blocks. But simple ranges=97 perhaps
>quantized to groups of 100 or 1000 blocks or something=97 would work fine.
>
>This doesn't have to come in the first cut, however=97 and it needs new
>addr messages in any case.