Received: from sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.194] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-2.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from <mh.in.england@gmail.com>) id 1SfWUp-00079j-8Q for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Fri, 15 Jun 2012 13:23:27 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com designates 74.125.82.175 as permitted sender) client-ip=74.125.82.175; envelope-from=mh.in.england@gmail.com; helo=mail-we0-f175.google.com; Received: from mail-we0-f175.google.com ([74.125.82.175]) by sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1SfWUj-0002BD-Rm for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Fri, 15 Jun 2012 13:23:27 +0000 Received: by werg55 with SMTP id g55so2329770wer.34 for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>; Fri, 15 Jun 2012 06:23:15 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.216.226.147 with SMTP id b19mr3354194weq.210.1339766591988; Fri, 15 Jun 2012 06:23:11 -0700 (PDT) Sender: mh.in.england@gmail.com Received: by 10.216.254.232 with HTTP; Fri, 15 Jun 2012 06:23:11 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <1339766346.31489.49.camel@bmthinkpad> References: <CA+8xBpecVQcTTbPxUm_3_GWC99dEd4=-VFWb+QT6jUy4rg8U4w@mail.gmail.com> <CANEZrP0kNZDByHpK2=UjP+ag0X1KmqHxnJdm=e_pWMitP4QvvA@mail.gmail.com> <1339766346.31489.49.camel@bmthinkpad> Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2012 15:23:11 +0200 X-Google-Sender-Auth: TAM7kFBxX4Io2Yy2pLaq0AwoPb4 Message-ID: <CANEZrP3jj2ymQPH50g2PvzZhRzTnUnCLUjvBYj8ndBCJsnGJ-w@mail.gmail.com> From: Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net> To: Matt Corallo <bitcoin-list@bluematt.me> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Spam-Score: -1.5 (-) 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 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: 1SfWUj-0002BD-Rm Cc: Bitcoin Development <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net> Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] New P2P commands for diagnostics, SPV clients 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: Fri, 15 Jun 2012 13:23:27 -0000 > > Why not combine these two? > > I believe its because it allows the node which will have to use the > bloom filter to scan transactions to chose how much effort it wants to > put into each transaction on behalf of the SPV client. If that's the case then the negotiation protocol needs to be specified too. It seems heavy though. If a node is getting overloaded it could just disconnect intensive peers or refuse new connections.