Received: from sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.194] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-1.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from <mh.in.england@gmail.com>) id 1QpIDk-0003ff-Tq for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Fri, 05 Aug 2011 11:05:40 +0000 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; Received: from mail-vw0-f47.google.com ([209.85.212.47]) by sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1QpIDk-00085i-86 for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Fri, 05 Aug 2011 11:05:40 +0000 Received: by vws2 with SMTP id 2so329099vws.34 for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>; Fri, 05 Aug 2011 04:05:34 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.52.76.8 with SMTP id g8mr1562818vdw.178.1312542334812; Fri, 05 Aug 2011 04:05:34 -0700 (PDT) Sender: mh.in.england@gmail.com Received: by 10.52.158.233 with HTTP; Fri, 5 Aug 2011 04:05:34 -0700 (PDT) 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 X-Google-Sender-Auth: pwIZw0qP8Yyd6Yb8gWgjQfQJt-c 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 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 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider (mh.in.england[at]gmail.com) -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record 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 1.0 AWL AWL: From: address is in the auto white-list X-Headers-End: 1QpIDk-00085i-86 Cc: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Double spend detection to speed up transaction trust X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: <bitcoin-development.lists.sourceforge.net> List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>, <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=unsubscribe> List-Archive: <http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_name=bitcoin-development> List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net> List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>, <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=subscribe> X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 05 Aug 2011 11:05:41 -0000 > 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.