Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of petertodd.org
	designates 62.13.149.95 as permitted sender)
	client-ip=62.13.149.95; envelope-from=pete@petertodd.org;
	helo=outmail149095.authsmtp.com; 
Date: Fri, 3 May 2013 11:11:57 -0400
From: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>
To: Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net>
Message-ID: <20130503151157.GA3902@petertodd.org>
References: <CAPg+sBjSe23eADMxu-1mx0Kg2LGkN+BSNByq0PtZcMxAMh0uTg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CANEZrP3FA-5z3gAC1aYbG2EOKM2eDyv7zX3S9+ia2ZJ0LPkKiA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAPg+sBjz8SbqU=2YXrXzwzmvz+NUbokD6KbPwZ5QAXSqCdi++g@mail.gmail.com>
	<CANEZrP2X9A0kBvN8=+G+dn_uqbSYfNhw7dm4od_yfJqDUoxHWg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAPg+sBgz2pLOkc3WL1sG3pJpdVqUZRwEfO9YaC-62vQyWLLW2Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<CANEZrP2aaOyv4U12-moux--OhZQdK7rXC24YN61o6LQ0a+bK6g@mail.gmail.com>
	<20130503141801.GA1301@petertodd.org>
	<CANEZrP0mRW-QW60JJmon3ATuoTGnZSFFMne9Dv7FnVnP49GXbQ@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1;
	protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="y0ulUmNC+osPPQO6"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CANEZrP0mRW-QW60JJmon3ATuoTGnZSFFMne9Dv7FnVnP49GXbQ@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Service bits for pruned nodes
Precedence: list


--y0ulUmNC+osPPQO6
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Fri, May 03, 2013 at 05:02:26PM +0200, Mike Hearn wrote:
> > If you're going to take a step like that, the <current-chain-height>
> > should be rounded off, perhaps to some number of bits, or you'll allow
> > DNS caching to be defeated.
> >
>=20
> Don't the seeds already set small times? I'm not sure we want these
> responses to be cacheable, otherwise there's a risk of a wall of traffic
> suddenly showing up at one set of nodes if a large ISP caches a response.
> (yes yes, I know, SPV node should be remembering addr broadcasts and such=
).

Hmm, on second thought you're probably right for the standard case where
it's really P2P. On the other hand it kinda limits us in the future if
seeds have high-bandwidth nodes they can just point clients too, but
maybe just assuming the DNS seed might need high bandwidth as well is
acceptable.

I dunno, given how badly behaved a lot of ISP dns servers are re:
caching, maybe we're better off keeping it simple.

--=20
'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
000000000000013bfdf35da40a40c35ccd75e09652ae541d94d26130a695f757

--y0ulUmNC+osPPQO6
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: Digital signature

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAlGD070ACgkQpEFN739thoyfNwCeLlZLf+qJbEGnDygaYmWFolee
DV0An10UZO+1KmxQR1rAVNzcl2ZvZsVw
=k+6h
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--y0ulUmNC+osPPQO6--