Received: from sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.192] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-1.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1WY8dU-0001Rk-Q4 for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Thu, 10 Apr 2014 06:38:56 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com designates 209.85.214.182 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.214.182; envelope-from=mh.in.england@gmail.com; helo=mail-ob0-f182.google.com; Received: from mail-ob0-f182.google.com ([209.85.214.182]) by sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1WY8dT-0000Qg-Ck for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Thu, 10 Apr 2014 06:38:56 +0000 Received: by mail-ob0-f182.google.com with SMTP id uz6so3963954obc.27 for ; Wed, 09 Apr 2014 23:38:50 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.60.58.7 with SMTP id m7mr337104oeq.59.1397111930054; Wed, 09 Apr 2014 23:38:50 -0700 (PDT) Sender: mh.in.england@gmail.com Received: by 10.76.96.180 with HTTP; Wed, 9 Apr 2014 23:38:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.76.96.180 with HTTP; Wed, 9 Apr 2014 23:38:49 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <53456B99.9010207@monetize.io> <00b77560-d7ed-4ed4-a4e5-eb1f00467a06@email.android.com> <0509477C-89F9-47C7-8820-29ACAD4A4A8E@bitsofproof.com> <534592E2.7040800@gmail.com> <5345986C.3040901@gmail.com> Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2014 08:38:49 +0200 X-Google-Sender-Auth: KX53sQXS2XPYikyseMUtp_1s6-w Message-ID: From: Mike Hearn To: slush Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e01538c564d6e7a04f6aa78d4 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 1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message 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: 1WY8dT-0000Qg-Ck Cc: Bitcoin Dev Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Bitcoind-in-background mode for SPV wallets 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: Thu, 10 Apr 2014 06:38:56 -0000 --089e01538c564d6e7a04f6aa78d4 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 I tend to agree with slush here - counting the IPs in addr broadcasts often gives a number like 100,000 vs just 10,000 for actually reachable nodes (or less). It seems like optimising the NAT tunneling code would help. Starting by adding more diagnostic stuff to the GUI. STUN support may also help. The main constraint with home devices is not IMHO their actual power but rather that a lot of people no longer keep computers switched on all the time. If you don't do that then spv with bundled Core can't help your security because the spv wallet would always be syncing from the p2p network for performance reasons. On 9 Apr 2014 22:13, "slush" wrote: > I believe there're plenty bitcoind instances running, but they don't have > configured port forwarding properly.There's uPNP support in bitcoind, but > it works only on simple setups. > > Maybe there're some not yet considered way how to expose these *existing* > instances to Internet, to strenghten the network. Maybe just self-test > indicating the node is not reachable from outside (together with short > howto like in some torrent clients). > > These days IPv6 is slowly deploying to server environments, but maybe > there's some simple way how to bundle ipv6 tunnelling into bitcoind so any > instance will become ipv6-reachable automatically? > > Maybe there're other ideas how to improve current situation without needs > of reworking the architecture. > > Marek > > > On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 9:33 PM, Gregory Maxwell wrote: > >> On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 11:58 AM, Justus Ranvier >> wrote: >> > Anyone reading the archives of the list will see about triple the >> > number of people independently confirming the resource usage problem >> > than they will see denying it, so I'm not particularly worried. >> >> The list has open membership, there is no particular qualification or >> background required to post here. Optimal use of an information source >> requires critical reading and understanding the limitations of the >> medium. Counting comments is usually not a great way to assess >> technical considerations on an open public forum. Doubly so because >> those comments were not actually talking about the same thing I am >> talking about. >> >> Existing implementations are inefficient in many known ways (and, no >> doubt, some unknown ones). This list is about developing protocol and >> implementations including improving their efficiency. When talking >> about incentives the costs you need to consider are the costs of the >> best realistic option. As far as I know there is no doubt from anyone >> technically experienced that under the current network rules full >> nodes can be operated with vastly less resources than current >> implementations use, it's just a question of the relatively modest >> implementation improvements. >> >> When you argue that Bitcoin doesn't have the right incentives (and >> thus something??) I retort that the actual resource _requirements_ are >> for the protocol very low. I gave specific example numbers to enable >> correction or clarification if I've said something wrong or >> controversial. Pointing out that existing implementations are not that >> currently as efficient as the underlying requirements and that some >> large number of users do not like the efficiency of existing >> implementations doesn't tell me anything I disagree with or didn't >> already know. Whats being discussed around here contributes to >> prioritizing improvements over the existing implementations. >> >> I hope this clarifies something. >> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> Put Bad Developers to Shame >> Dominate Development with Jenkins Continuous Integration >> Continuously Automate Build, Test & Deployment >> Start a new project now. Try Jenkins in the cloud. >> http://p.sf.net/sfu/13600_Cloudbees >> _______________________________________________ >> Bitcoin-development mailing list >> Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development >> > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Put Bad Developers to Shame > Dominate Development with Jenkins Continuous Integration > Continuously Automate Build, Test & Deployment > Start a new project now. Try Jenkins in the cloud. > http://p.sf.net/sfu/13600_Cloudbees > _______________________________________________ > Bitcoin-development mailing list > Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development > > --089e01538c564d6e7a04f6aa78d4 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

I tend to agree with slush here - counting the IPs in addr b= roadcasts often gives a number like 100,000 vs just 10,000 for actually rea= chable nodes (or less). It seems like optimising the NAT tunneling code wou= ld help. Starting by adding more diagnostic stuff to the GUI. STUN support = may also help.

The main constraint with home devices is not IMHO their actu= al power but rather that a lot of people no longer keep computers switched = on all the time. If you don't do that then spv with bundled Core can= 9;t help your security because the spv wallet would always be syncing from = the p2p network for performance reasons.

On 9 Apr 2014 22:13, "slush" <slush@centrum.cz> wrote:
I believe there're plenty bitcoind instances running, = but they don't have configured port forwarding properly.There's uPN= P support in bitcoind, but it works only on simple setups.

Maybe there're some not yet considered way how to expose these *existin= g* instances to Internet, to strenghten the network. Maybe just self-test i= ndicating the node is not reachable from outside (together with short howto= like in some torrent clients).

These days IPv6 is slowly deploying to server environme= nts, but maybe there's some simple way how to bundle ipv6 tunnelling in= to bitcoind so any instance will become ipv6-reachable automatically?

Maybe there're other ideas how to improve current s= ituation without needs of reworking the architecture.

<= div>Marek


On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 9:33 PM, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell@gmail.com&g= t; wrote:
On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 11:58 AM, Justus Ranvier <justusranvier@gmail.com> = wrote:
> Anyone reading the archives of the list will see about triple the
> number of people independently confirming the resource usage problem > than they will see denying it, so I'm not particularly worried.
The list has open membership, there is no particular qualification or=
background required to post here. Optimal use of an information source
requires critical reading and understanding the limitations of the
medium. Counting comments is usually not a great way to assess
technical considerations on an open public forum. =C2=A0Doubly so because those comments were not actually talking about the same thing I am
talking about.

Existing implementations are inefficient in many known ways (and, no
doubt, some unknown ones). This list is about developing protocol and
implementations including improving their efficiency. =C2=A0When talking about incentives the costs you need to consider are the costs of the
best realistic option. =C2=A0As far as I know there is no doubt from anyone=
technically experienced that under the current network rules full
nodes can be operated with vastly less resources than current
implementations use, it's just a question of the relatively modest
implementation improvements.

When you argue that Bitcoin doesn't have the right incentives (and
thus something??) I retort that the actual resource _requirements_ are
for the protocol very low. I gave specific example numbers to enable
correction or clarification if I've said something wrong or
controversial. Pointing out that existing implementations are not that
currently as efficient as the underlying requirements and that some
large number of users do not like the efficiency of existing
implementations doesn't tell me anything I disagree with or didn't<= br> already know. Whats being discussed around here contributes to
prioritizing improvements over the existing implementations.

I hope this clarifies something.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------= ---
Put Bad Developers to Shame
Dominate Development with Jenkins Continuous Integration
Continuously Automate Build, Test & Deployment
Start a new project now. Try Jenkins in the cloud.
http://p.= sf.net/sfu/13600_Cloudbees
_______________________________________________
Bitcoin-development mailing list
Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-de= velopment


-----------------------------------------------------------------------= -------
Put Bad Developers to Shame
Dominate Development with Jenkins Continuous Integration
Continuously Automate Build, Test & Deployment
Start a new project now. Try Jenkins in the cloud.
http://p.= sf.net/sfu/13600_Cloudbees
_________________________________________= ______
Bitcoin-development mailing list
Bitcoin-develo= pment@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-de= velopment

--089e01538c564d6e7a04f6aa78d4--