Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BB364BBF for ; Thu, 11 May 2017 19:25:28 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from zinan.dashjr.org (zinan.dashjr.org [192.3.11.21]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5319D1D9 for ; Thu, 11 May 2017 19:25:28 +0000 (UTC) Received: from ishibashi.localnet (unknown [IPv6:2001:470:5:265:a45d:823b:2d27:961c]) (Authenticated sender: luke-jr) by zinan.dashjr.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 27C9438A0EB7; Thu, 11 May 2017 19:24:23 +0000 (UTC) X-Hashcash: 1:25:170511:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org::ZW6cWFYHtvM=t46p:bXE+n X-Hashcash: 1:25:170511:dev@jonasschnelli.ch::4qcUF0qkpfa1kLSZ:dxO+5 From: Luke Dashjr To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org, Jonas Schnelli Date: Thu, 11 May 2017 19:24:21 +0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.13.7 (Linux/4.9.16-gentoo; KDE/4.14.29; x86_64; ; ) References: In-Reply-To: X-PGP-Key-Fingerprint: E463 A93F 5F31 17EE DE6C 7316 BD02 9424 21F4 889F X-PGP-Key-ID: BD02942421F4889F X-PGP-Keyserver: hkp://pgp.mit.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-15" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <201705111924.22055.luke@dashjr.org> X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED, RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP proposal: NODE_NETWORK_LIMITED service bits X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 11 May 2017 19:25:28 -0000 > A peer signaling NODE_NETWORK_LIMITED_LOW & NODE_NETWORK_LIMITED_HIGH MUST > be capable of serving at least the last 7'056 blocks (~49 days) > (NODE_NETWORK_LIMITED_HIGH's value ^2). Is 49 days particularly useful? Would it be a problem to instead leave both- bits undefined? I'm thinking this might be better as a way to indicate "7 days, plus a deterministically chosen set of historical blocks"... > Current Bitcoin-Core pruned full nodes guarantees a minimum of 288 blocks, > thus allowing to signal NODE_NETWORK_LIMITED_LOW with the current minimum > configuration. This is technically true right now, but as soon as segwit activates, it will no longer be... Therefore, I suggest striking it from the BIP, expounding on it in greater detail, or making it true for the longer term. > Peers following this BIP SHOULD connect a limited amount of their available > outbound connections to peers signaling one or both of the > NODE_NETWORK_LIMITED_* service bits if they expect to request less blocks > than the signaled number. This isn't entirely clear whether it refers to peers downloading blocks, or peers serving them. (I assume the former, but it should be clarified.) > Light clients (and such) who are not checking the nServiceFlags (service > bits) from a relayed addr-message may unwillingly connect to a pruned peer > and ask for (filtered) blocks at a depth below their pruned depth. Wouldn't this already be a problem, without the BIP? Luke