Received: from sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.194] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-3.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1YsDU4-0002ip-Di for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Tue, 12 May 2015 16:56:44 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com designates 209.85.220.52 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.220.52; envelope-from=gappleto97@gmail.com; helo=mail-pa0-f52.google.com; Received: from mail-pa0-f52.google.com ([209.85.220.52]) by sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1YsDU3-0000Co-7K for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Tue, 12 May 2015 16:56:44 +0000 Received: by pabtp1 with SMTP id tp1so19061359pab.2 for ; Tue, 12 May 2015 09:56:37 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.66.249.198 with SMTP id yw6mr29354867pac.149.1431449797567; Tue, 12 May 2015 09:56:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.66.85.165 with HTTP; Tue, 12 May 2015 09:56:37 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Tue, 12 May 2015 12:56:37 -0400 Message-ID: From: gabe appleton To: Jeff Garzik Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e0160c916b2ac560515e5604d X-Spam-Score: -0.3 (/) 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 (gappleto97[at]gmail.com) -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record 0.2 FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT Envelope-from freemail username ends in digit (gappleto97[at]gmail.com) 1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message -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: 1YsDU3-0000Co-7K Cc: Bitcoin Dev Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Proposed additional options 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: Tue, 12 May 2015 16:56:44 -0000 --089e0160c916b2ac560515e5604d Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Yes, but that just increases the incentive for partially-full nodes. It would add to the assumed-small number of full nodes. Or am I misunderstanding? On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 12:05 PM, Jeff Garzik wrote: > A general assumption is that you will have a few archive nodes with the > full blockchain, and a majority of nodes are pruned, able to serve only the > tail of the chains. > > > On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 8:26 AM, gabe appleton > wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> There's been a lot of talk in the rest of the community about how the >> 20MB step would increase storage needs, and that switching to pruned nodes >> (partially) would reduce network security. I think I may have a solution. >> >> There could be a hybrid option in nodes. Selecting this would do the >> following: >> Flip the --no-wallet toggle >> Select a section of the blockchain to store fully (percentage based, >> possibly on hash % sections?) >> Begin pruning all sections not included in 2 >> The idea is that you can implement it similar to how a Koorde is done, in >> that the network will decide which sections it retrieves. So if the user >> prompts it to store 50% of the blockchain, it would look at its peers, and >> at their peers (if secure), and choose the least-occurring options from >> them. >> >> This would allow them to continue validating all transactions, and still >> store a full copy, just distributed among many nodes. It should overall >> have little impact on security (unless I'm mistaken), and it would >> significantly reduce storage needs on a node. >> >> It would also allow for a retroactive --max-size flag, where it will >> prune until it is at the specified size, and continue to prune over time, >> while keeping to the sections defined by the network. >> >> What sort of side effects or network vulnerabilities would this >> introduce? I know some said it wouldn't be Sybil resistant, but how would >> this be less so than a fully pruned node? >> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> One dashboard for servers and applications across Physical-Virtual-Cloud >> Widest out-of-the-box monitoring support with 50+ applications >> Performance metrics, stats and reports that give you Actionable Insights >> Deep dive visibility with transaction tracing using APM Insight. >> http://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/290420510;117567292;y >> _______________________________________________ >> Bitcoin-development mailing list >> Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development >> >> > > > -- > Jeff Garzik > Bitcoin core developer and open source evangelist > BitPay, Inc. https://bitpay.com/ > --089e0160c916b2ac560515e5604d Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Yes, but that just increases the incentive for partially-f= ull nodes. It would add to the assumed-small number of full nodes.

=
Or am I misunderstanding?
=
On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 12:05 PM, Jeff Garzi= k <jgarzik@bitpay.com> wrote:
A general assumption is that you will have a few arch= ive nodes with the full blockchain, and a majority of nodes are pruned, abl= e to serve only the tail of the chains.


On Tue, M= ay 12, 2015 at 8:26 AM, gabe appleton <gappleto97@gmail.com> wrote:

Hi,

There's been a lot of talk in the rest of the community = about how the 20MB step would increase storage needs, and that switching to= pruned nodes (partially) would reduce network security. I think I may have= a solution.

There could be a hybrid option in nodes. Selecting this woul= d do the following:
Flip the --no-wallet toggle
Select a section of the blockchain to store fully (percentage based, possib= ly on hash % sections?)
Begin pruning all sections not included in 2
The idea is that you can implement it similar to how a Koorde is done, in t= hat the network will decide which sections it retrieves. So if the user pro= mpts it to store 50% of the blockchain, it would look at its peers, and at = their peers (if secure), and choose the least-occurring options from them.<= /p>

This would allow them to continue validating all transaction= s, and still store a full copy, just distributed among many nodes. It shoul= d overall have little impact on security (unless I'm mistaken), and it = would significantly reduce storage needs on a node.

It would also allow for a retroactive --max-size flag, where= it will prune until it is at the specified size, and continue to prune ove= r time, while keeping to the sections defined by the network.

What sort of side effects or network vulnerabilities would t= his introduce? I know some said it wouldn't be Sybil resistant, but how= would this be less so than a fully pruned node?


-----------------------------------------------------------= -------------------
One dashboard for servers and applications across Physical-Virtual-Cloud Widest out-of-the-box monitoring support with 50+ applications
Performance metrics, stats and reports that give you Actionable Insights Deep dive visibility with transaction tracing using APM Insight.
http://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/290420510;117567292;y
= _______________________________________________
Bitcoin-development mailing list
Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-de= velopment


<= br clear=3D"all">

--
Jeff Garzik
Bitcoin core dev= eloper and open source evangelist
BitPay, Inc. =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0https://bitpay.com/

--089e0160c916b2ac560515e5604d--