Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of bitpay.com
	designates 74.125.82.169 as permitted sender)
	client-ip=74.125.82.169; envelope-from=jgarzik@bitpay.com;
	helo=mail-we0-f169.google.com; 
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAAS2fgQaJ6P4Aj2A5Zox+CiGQK6jHvF1CkLH1R6xbadYhUXO2g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CANEZrP2rgiQHpekEpFviJ22QsiV+s-F2pqosaZOA5WrRtJx5pg@mail.gmail.com>
	<5342C833.5030906@gmail.com>
	<CAAS2fgTqBfEPXh2dfcL_ke6c0wfXw4qUM1rAYMkAHcAM6mYH+g@mail.gmail.com>
	<6D430188-CE00-44B1-BD8C-B623CF04D466@icloudtools.net>
	<CANEZrP1-9LpPw4WuY8bfsEG0OLoDECXTfQCoZsZ4tmOn2H7Omw@mail.gmail.com>
	<6D6E55CE-2F04-4C34-BEE6-98AEF1478346@bitsofproof.com>
	<CAAS2fgQaJ6P4Aj2A5Zox+CiGQK6jHvF1CkLH1R6xbadYhUXO2g@mail.gmail.com>
From: Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@bitpay.com>
Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2014 23:44:14 -0400
Message-ID: <CAJHLa0MOB2=1JNfXCb-DY24ssTi7hVFi6H7JDaeVp5oOUUMy=A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Cc: Bitcoin Development <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Why are we bleeding nodes?
Precedence: list

Being Mr. Torrent, I've held open the "80% serious" suggestion to
simply refuse to serve blocks older than X (3 months?).

That forces download by other means (presumably torrent).

I do not feel it is productive for any nodes on the network to waste
time/bandwidth/etc. serving static, ancient data.  There remain, of
course, issues of older nodes and "getting the word out" that prevents
this switch from being flipped on tomorrow.


On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 2:49 PM, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 11:35 AM, Tamas Blummer <tamas@bitsofproof.com> wrote:
>> BTW, did we already agree on the service bits for an archive node?
>
> I'm still very concerned that a binary archive bit will cause extreme
> load hot-spotting and the kind of binary "Use lots of resources YES or
> NO" I think we're currently suffering some from, but at that point
> enshrined in the protocol.
>
> It would be much better to extend the addr messages so that nodes can
> indicate a range or two of blocks that they're serving, so that all
> nodes can contribute fractionally according to their means. E.g. if
> you want to offer up 8 GB of distributed storage and contribute to the
> availability of the blockchain,  without having to swollow the whole
> 20, 30, 40 ... gigabyte pill.
>
> Already we need that kind of distributed storage for the most recent
> blocks to prevent extreme bandwidth load on archives, so extending it
> to arbitrary ranges is only more complicated because there is
> currently no room to signal it.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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


-- 
Jeff Garzik
Bitcoin core developer and open source evangelist
BitPay, Inc.      https://bitpay.com/