Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
	designates 209.85.212.47 as permitted sender)
	client-ip=209.85.212.47; envelope-from=mh.in.england@gmail.com;
	helo=mail-vw0-f47.google.com; 
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: mh.in.england@gmail.com
In-Reply-To: <4E3B35E7.1010409@justmoon.de>
References: <201108041423.14176.andyparkins@gmail.com>
	<201108041922.16956.andyparkins@gmail.com>
	<1312483196.3109.38.camel@Desktop666>
	<201108042042.55214.andyparkins@gmail.com>
	<CANEZrP3kEquEvqkqGqSh0iPRqoHhKLHoNgqc+9EORLoxpL7a=g@mail.gmail.com>
	<1312496173.3109.55.camel@Desktop666>
	<4E3B35E7.1010409@justmoon.de>
Date: Fri, 5 Aug 2011 13:05:34 +0200
Message-ID: <CANEZrP1QVdOdttOk4_kzoHkVf_KYRzVFyBEpOFvi+L_DLd=74A@mail.gmail.com>
From: Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net>
To: Stefan Thomas <moon@justmoon.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Cc: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Double spend detection to speed up
 transaction trust
Precedence: list

> Could this be because the network right now consists largely of end
> users with residential type networks?

Probably.

How many connections "should" a node use? We faced this decision in
BitCoinJ recently and I asked the patch writer to reduce the number.
It seems pretty arbitrary to me - if you aren't going to relay, a
single connection should be good enough. Yes, it makes sybil easier,
but if you pick the one node randomly enough it might be ok?

> actually deployed. Wikipedia says that "some NAT routers" support it and
> that it's not an IETF standard. All routers I've actually seen in real
> life had it disabled by default.)

Hmm, I don't recall ever enabling it in my router but it's on and the
Bitcoin support works. UPnP is used by all kinds of common programs
like Skype and Xbox Live.