Received: from sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.191]
	helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
	by sfs-ml-3.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
	(envelope-from <gavinandresen@gmail.com>) id 1Rbzb6-00063S-41
	for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
	Sat, 17 Dec 2011 19:07:04 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
	designates 74.125.82.53 as permitted sender)
	client-ip=74.125.82.53; envelope-from=gavinandresen@gmail.com;
	helo=mail-ww0-f53.google.com; 
Received: from mail-ww0-f53.google.com ([74.125.82.53])
	by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-MD5:128)
	(Exim 4.76) id 1Rbzb5-0006Jf-7N
	for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
	Sat, 17 Dec 2011 19:07:04 +0000
Received: by wgbds1 with SMTP id ds1so7518843wgb.10
	for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
	Sat, 17 Dec 2011 11:06:57 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.216.132.231 with SMTP id o81mr2346797wei.3.1324148817036; Sat,
	17 Dec 2011 11:06:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.223.156.77 with HTTP; Sat, 17 Dec 2011 11:06:56 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CABsx9T0puk3CWH1cfNHMSVEoCPaLJJWNJ+H5ObCERZrzMbrTyA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CABr1YTebhitO4g-SarZ7H=aoG9a8zW1wd0rfR32o8i0vODbLJw@mail.gmail.com>
	<82659F61-0449-47BB-88DC-497E0D02F8A1@ceptacle.com>
	<CALxbBHUXEJLRDZ=RS1vuvkm7rDjFUPir0sU__f6TJXiTTQxWzA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CABsx9T0puk3CWH1cfNHMSVEoCPaLJJWNJ+H5ObCERZrzMbrTyA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2011 14:06:56 -0500
Message-ID: <CABsx9T06-GA5+KNdr_XzP_M4Av8nEsnMXL29tk078wooZg=RZw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Gavin Andresen <gavinandresen@gmail.com>
To: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Spam-Score: -1.6 (-)
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
	(gavinandresen[at]gmail.com)
	-0.0 SPF_PASS               SPF: sender matches SPF record
	-0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from
	author's domain
	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: 1Rbzb5-0006Jf-7N
Subject: [Bitcoin-development] Protocol extensions
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: Sat, 17 Dec 2011 19:07:04 -0000

There was a discussion about using DHT's for transactions a while back
on the forums:
=A0https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3D723.msg7908#msg7908

If you can figure out a scheme that is secure from malicious Sybil
attacks then you're smarter than I am.

And additional protocol messages for lightweight clients is a good
idea, as long as they don't make it a lot easier to pull off a
denial-of-service attacks on a "full" node.

Although I do also wonder if we'll ever run into a problem with full
nodes refusing to answer requests from lightweight nodes (there might
be a tragedy-of-the-commons problem lurking there).

--
--
Gavin Andresen