Received: from sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.191] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-1.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1UWf4K-0001rY-3l for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Mon, 29 Apr 2013 03:48:00 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of robbak.com designates 74.125.82.177 as permitted sender) client-ip=74.125.82.177; envelope-from=robbak@robbak.com; helo=mail-we0-f177.google.com; Received: from mail-we0-f177.google.com ([74.125.82.177]) by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1UWf4I-0004ad-SC for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Mon, 29 Apr 2013 03:48:00 +0000 Received: by mail-we0-f177.google.com with SMTP id s47so4177740wey.8 for ; Sun, 28 Apr 2013 20:47:52 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:x-received:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id :subject:from:to:content-type:x-gm-message-state; bh=GL1j5lyKrhMsUORh2x/svfM0vi4BrjFxWLQ0GeIhgSI=; b=fW4FUnKZjX6D2YyrCTPo1w02TnqASeNGaRGqfVD7HrjkrobyxN8jHDELX1HNovpYa/ zyrMT/+sy/3xOYKOW0k9PwYiwndkTwuBLHolt2bVYS/gZB4UKq9UGSPTKCM2Z57p2Qx7 uPfAgtyv3d8gvtnzFSwIH/yIvbe+moSF9spZ4Nxl5l65joA9qGe+QPCGj19jBacRBOki cZCDi/ZbBNyDu3HzoUTZcwffAwDZd3NF5TjVz+mkOokMvwDMutM4CnADGzfZ+djHNBYk GaMyRNXdGamw5h2AkJdVY7FQBcpaQLWMWT+nENZBOCkwZiWv5VDbOmy5gxacUhErtApT 82ew== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.180.183.50 with SMTP id ej18mr14738126wic.4.1367206966602; Sun, 28 Apr 2013 20:42:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.194.80.169 with HTTP; Sun, 28 Apr 2013 20:42:46 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2013 13:42:46 +1000 Message-ID: From: Robert Backhaus To: Bitcoin Dev Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c353a2943d2604db77ad22 X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlMgmzK2ZyddZfF1udHEP5FQZecChIFi6GnHBLRT8Xi/ALsl/vNHft7LDU1cdS9/kXs7Jzx X-Spam-Score: -0.5 (/) 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 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record 1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message X-Headers-End: 1UWf4I-0004ad-SC 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: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2013 03:48:00 -0000 --001a11c353a2943d2604db77ad22 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable While I like the idea of a client using a DHT blockchain or UTXO list, I don't think that the reference client is the place for it. But it would make for a very interesting experimental project! On 29 April 2013 13:36, Gregory Maxwell wrote: > On Sun, Apr 28, 2013 at 7:57 PM, John Dillon > wrote: > > Have we considered just leaving that problem to a different protocol > such as > > BitTorrent? Offering up a few GB of storage capacity is a nice idea but > it > > means we would soon have to add structure to the network to allow nodes > to find > > each other to actually get that data. BitTorrent already has that issue > thought > > through carefully with it's DHT support. > > I think this is not a great idea on a couple levels=97 > > Least importantly, our own experience with tracker-less torrents on > the bootstrap files that they don't work very well in practice=97 and > thats without someone trying to DOS attack it. > > More importantly, I think it's very important that the process of > offering up more storage not take any more steps. The software could > have user overridable defaults based on free disk space to make > contributing painless. This isn't possible if it takes extra software, > requires opening additional ports.. etc. Also means that someone > would have to be constantly creating new torrents, there would be > issues with people only seeding the old ones, etc. > > It's also the case that bittorrent is blocked on many networks and is > confused with illicit copying. We would have the same problems with > that that we had with IRC being confused with botnets. > > We already have to worry about nodes finding each other just for basic > operation. The only addition this requires is being able to advertise > what parts of the chain they have. > > > What are the logistics of either integrating a DHT capable BitTorrent > client, > > or just calling out to some library? We could still use the Bitcoin > network to > > bootstrap the BitTorrent DHT. > > Using Bitcoin to bootstrap the Bittorrent DHT would probably make it > more reliable, but then again it might cause commercial services that > are in the business of poisoning the bittorrent DHT to target the > Bitcoin network. > > Integration also brings up the question of network exposed attack surface= . > > Seems like it would be more work than just adding the ability to add > ranges to address messages. I think we already want to revise the > address message format in order to have signed flags and to support > I2P peers. > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------= ----- > Try New Relic Now & We'll Send You this Cool Shirt > New Relic is the only SaaS-based application performance monitoring servi= ce > that delivers powerful full stack analytics. Optimize and monitor your > browser, app, & servers with just a few lines of code. Try New Relic > and get this awesome Nerd Life shirt! http://p.sf.net/sfu/newrelic_d2d_ap= r > _______________________________________________ > Bitcoin-development mailing list > Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development > --001a11c353a2943d2604db77ad22 Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
While I like the idea of a client using a DHT blockchain o= r UTXO list, I don't think that the reference client is the place for i= t. But it would make for a very interesting experimental project!


On 29 April 2013 13:36, Gregory Maxwell = <gmaxwell@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, Apr 28, 2013 at 7:57 PM, John Dillon
<john.dillon892@googlem= ail.com> wrote:
> Have we considered just leaving that problem to a different protocol s= uch as
> BitTorrent? Offering up a few GB of storage capacity is a nice idea bu= t it
> means we would soon have to add structure to the network to allow node= s to find
> each other to actually get that data. BitTorrent already has that issu= e thought
> through carefully with it's DHT support.

I think this is not a great idea on a couple levels=97

Least importantly, our own experience with tracker-less torrents on
the bootstrap files that they don't work very well in practice=97 and thats without someone trying to DOS attack it.

More importantly, I think it's very important that the process of
offering up more storage not take any more steps. The software could
have user overridable defaults based on free disk space to make
contributing painless. This isn't possible if it takes extra software,<= br> requires opening additional ports.. etc. =A0Also means that someone
would have to be constantly creating new torrents, there would be
issues with people only seeding the old ones, etc.

It's also the case that bittorrent is blocked on many networks and is confused with illicit copying. We would have the same problems with
that that we had with IRC being confused with botnets.

We already have to worry about nodes finding each other just for basic
operation. The only addition this requires is being able to advertise
what parts of the chain they have.

> What are the logistics of either integrating a DHT capable BitTorrent = client,
> or just calling out to some library? We could still use the Bitcoin ne= twork to
> bootstrap the BitTorrent DHT.

Using Bitcoin to bootstrap the Bittorrent DHT would probably make it<= br> more reliable, but then again it might cause commercial services that
are in the business of poisoning the bittorrent DHT to target the
Bitcoin network.

Integration also brings up the question of network exposed attack surface.<= br>
Seems like it would be more work than just adding the ability to add
ranges to address messages. I think we already want to revise the
address message format in order to have signed flags and to support
I2P peers.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------= ---
Try New Relic Now & We'll Send You this Cool Shirt
New Relic is the only SaaS-based application performance monitoring service=
that delivers powerful full stack analytics. Optimize and monitor your
browser, app, & servers with just a few lines of code. Try New Relic and get this awesome Nerd Life shirt! http://p.sf.net/sfu/newrelic_d2d_apr
_______________________________________________
Bitcoin-development mailing list
Bitcoin-develo= pment@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-de= velopment

--001a11c353a2943d2604db77ad22--