Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
	designates 209.85.223.171 as permitted sender)
	client-ip=209.85.223.171; envelope-from=laanwj@gmail.com;
	helo=mail-ie0-f171.google.com; 
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAAS2fgStmEpiUV4Yh-qqu6sZ+VZ5SiQPwp+QA=3X5zR52ia3OA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CANEZrP04O7EqB=TqyTiC7O1K2A9R0nKJ_ssANHKg=Byum8-LtA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CA+s+GJDbYjwhpsV15a+7kCO_vTstEewVrwvqbnB=a5zOSwFC6Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAAS2fgStmEpiUV4Yh-qqu6sZ+VZ5SiQPwp+QA=3X5zR52ia3OA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2014 16:19:25 +0200
Message-ID: <CA+s+GJBxEC2MifJQY5-vn2zSOHo-UOm8B1vYHHOfuxq26=VscQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Wladimir <laanwj@gmail.com>
To: Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c2fe1087d40104f6b0e799
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Chain pruning
Precedence: list

--001a11c2fe1087d40104f6b0e799
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 2:10 PM, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell@gmail.com> wrote:

> But sure I could see a fixed range as also being a useful contribution
> though I'm struggling to figure out what set of constraints would
> leave a node without following the consensus?   Obviously it has
> bandwidth if you're expecting to contribute much in serving those
> historic blocks... and verifying is reasonably cpu cheap with fast
> ecdsa code.   Maybe it has a lot of read only storage?
>

The use case is that you could burn the node implementation + block data +
a live operating system on a read-only medium. This could be set in stone
for a long time.

There would be no consensus code to keep up to date with protocol
developments, because it doesn't take active part in it.

I don't think it would be terribly useful right now, but it could be useful
when nodes that host all history become rare. It'd allow distributing
'pieces of history' in a self-contained form.


> I think it should be possible to express and use such a thing in the
> protocol even if I'm currently unsure as to why you wouldn't do 100000
> - 200000  _plus_ the most recent 144 that you were already keeping
> around for reorgs.
>

Yes, it would be nice to at least be able to express it, if it doesn't make
the protocol too finicky.

In terms of peer selection, if the blocks you need aren't covered by
> the nodes you're currently connected to I think you'd prefer to seek
> node nodes which have the least rare-ness in the ranges they offer.
> E.g. if you're looking for a block 50 from the tip,  you're should
> probably not prefer to fetch it from someone with blocks 100000-150000
> if its one of only 100 nodes that has that range.
>

That makes sense.

In general, if you want a block 50 from the tip, it would be best to
request it from a node that only serves the last N (N>~50) blocks, and not
a history node that could use the same bandwidth to serve earlier, rarer
blocks to others.

Wladimir

--001a11c2fe1087d40104f6b0e799
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">=
On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 2:10 PM, Gregory Maxwell <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a h=
ref=3D"mailto:gmaxwell@gmail.com" target=3D"_blank">gmaxwell@gmail.com</a>&=
gt;</span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1p=
x #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">But sure I could see a fixed range as also b=
eing a useful contribution<br>
though I&#39;m struggling to figure out what set of constraints would<br>
leave a node without following the consensus? =C2=A0 Obviously it has<br>
bandwidth if you&#39;re expecting to contribute much in serving those<br>
historic blocks... and verifying is reasonably cpu cheap with fast<br>
ecdsa code. =C2=A0 Maybe it has a lot of read only storage?<br></blockquote=
><div><br>The use case is that you could burn the node implementation + blo=
ck data + a live operating system on a read-only medium. This could be set =
in stone for a long time.<br>
<br></div><div>There would be no consensus code to keep up to date with pro=
tocol developments, because it doesn&#39;t take active part in it.<br></div=
><div><br></div><div>I don&#39;t think it would be terribly useful right no=
w, but it could be useful when nodes that host all history become rare. It&=
#39;d allow distributing &#39;pieces of history&#39; in a self-contained fo=
rm.<br>
</div><div>=C2=A0</div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 =
0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">

I think it should be possible to express and use such a thing in the<br>
protocol even if I&#39;m currently unsure as to why you wouldn&#39;t do 100=
000<br>
- 200000 =C2=A0_plus_ the most recent 144 that you were already keeping<br>
around for reorgs.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Yes, it would be nic=
e to at least be able to express it, if it doesn&#39;t make the protocol to=
o finicky.<br><br></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0=
 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">


In terms of peer selection, if the blocks you need aren&#39;t covered by<br=
>
the nodes you&#39;re currently connected to I think you&#39;d prefer to see=
k<br>
node nodes which have the least rare-ness in the ranges they offer.<br>
E.g. if you&#39;re looking for a block 50 from the tip, =C2=A0you&#39;re sh=
ould<br>
probably not prefer to fetch it from someone with blocks 100000-150000<br>
if its one of only 100 nodes that has that range.<br></blockquote><div><br>=
</div><div>That makes sense. <br><br>In general, if you want a block 50 fro=
m the tip, it would be best to request it from a node that only serves the =
last N (N&gt;~50) blocks, and not a history node that could use the same ba=
ndwidth to serve earlier, rarer blocks to others.<br>
</div><div><br></div><div>Wladimir <br></div></div><br></div></div>

--001a11c2fe1087d40104f6b0e799--