MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: marek@palatinus.cz
In-Reply-To: <CAAS2fgQyXHNnBDKoUMd_=-=1irGJ6cFKwi59enLJvFJiWBv50A@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CA+s+GJCn9U2kmyMH6w3o+m99NCfO0ws=SccvGBYJv07WVuF=eA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAADm4BCEFCiOpNzUThPPHUamP2256izU8pwD3nerLCxks0wENA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAAS2fgTx40XSLhiygnJMrSbOC=iJ2YMVLNK7-AMt3ifvAHDZUA@mail.gmail.com>
	<E9BAD633-3B6A-4A2C-AA06-DB591973DF66@bitsofproof.com>
	<53456B99.9010207@monetize.io>
	<B2FEC170-7214-4E46-8830-153995870B62@bitsofproof.com>
	<00b77560-d7ed-4ed4-a4e5-eb1f00467a06@email.android.com>
	<0509477C-89F9-47C7-8820-29ACAD4A4A8E@bitsofproof.com>
	<CANEZrP2Q=TG+jejEVFFh5FhjzDDkySHNSTfwtKueLcHu=pB6Kw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CA+s+GJBRvDFgktTgW2sCvAVahrjxcGqfgHw0BVNPvwUupotVrg@mail.gmail.com>
	<534592E2.7040800@gmail.com>
	<CAAS2fgS3q6N9go-NSKdjLwgU_5bFwa8YE88DcjNYHQTwzPCn3Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<5345986C.3040901@gmail.com>
	<CAAS2fgQyXHNnBDKoUMd_=-=1irGJ6cFKwi59enLJvFJiWBv50A@mail.gmail.com>
From: slush <slush@centrum.cz>
Date: Wed, 9 Apr 2014 22:12:17 +0200
Message-ID: <CAJna-Hj1U5cQ22bSXoNB-4ck_urCuS9xCk+iEHsbh+yv17MP7A@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: Bitcoin Development <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=20cf307ac14162270604f6a1b97e
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Bitcoind-in-background mode for SPV
	wallets
Precedence: list

--20cf307ac14162270604f6a1b97e
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

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 <gmaxwell@gmail.com> 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.  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
>

--20cf307ac14162270604f6a1b97e
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr">I believe there&#39;re plenty bitcoind instances running, =
but they don&#39;t have configured port forwarding properly.There&#39;s uPN=
P support in bitcoind, but it works only on simple setups.<div><br></div><d=
iv>

Maybe there&#39;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).</div>

<div><br></div><div>These days IPv6 is slowly deploying to server environme=
nts, but maybe there&#39;s some simple way how to bundle ipv6 tunnelling in=
to bitcoind so any instance will become ipv6-reachable automatically?</div>

<div><br></div><div>Maybe there&#39;re other ideas how to improve current s=
ituation without needs of reworking the architecture.</div><div><br></div><=
div>Marek</div></div><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><br><div class=3D"gmail=
_quote">

On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 9:33 PM, Gregory Maxwell <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a hr=
ef=3D"mailto:gmaxwell@gmail.com" target=3D"_blank">gmaxwell@gmail.com</a>&g=
t;</span> wrote:<br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0=
 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">

<div class=3D"">On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 11:58 AM, Justus Ranvier &lt;<a href=
=3D"mailto:justusranvier@gmail.com">justusranvier@gmail.com</a>&gt; wrote:<=
br>
&gt; Anyone reading the archives of the list will see about triple the<br>
&gt; number of people independently confirming the resource usage problem<b=
r>
&gt; than they will see denying it, so I&#39;m not particularly worried.<br=
>
<br>
</div>The list has open membership, there is no particular qualification or=
<br>
background required to post here. Optimal use of an information source<br>
requires critical reading and understanding the limitations of the<br>
medium. Counting comments is usually not a great way to assess<br>
technical considerations on an open public forum. =A0Doubly so because<br>
those comments were not actually talking about the same thing I am<br>
talking about.<br>
<br>
Existing implementations are inefficient in many known ways (and, no<br>
doubt, some unknown ones). This list is about developing protocol and<br>
implementations including improving their efficiency. =A0When talking<br>
about incentives the costs you need to consider are the costs of the<br>
best realistic option. =A0As far as I know there is no doubt from anyone<br=
>
technically experienced that under the current network rules full<br>
nodes can be operated with vastly less resources than current<br>
implementations use, it&#39;s just a question of the relatively modest<br>
implementation improvements.<br>
<br>
When you argue that Bitcoin doesn&#39;t have the right incentives (and<br>
thus something??) I retort that the actual resource _requirements_ are<br>
for the protocol very low. I gave specific example numbers to enable<br>
correction or clarification if I&#39;ve said something wrong or<br>
controversial. Pointing out that existing implementations are not that<br>
currently as efficient as the underlying requirements and that some<br>
large number of users do not like the efficiency of existing<br>
implementations doesn&#39;t tell me anything I disagree with or didn&#39;t<=
br>
already know. Whats being discussed around here contributes to<br>
prioritizing improvements over the existing implementations.<br>
<br>
I hope this clarifies something.<br>
<div class=3D"HOEnZb"><div class=3D"h5"><br>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------=
---<br>
Put Bad Developers to Shame<br>
Dominate Development with Jenkins Continuous Integration<br>
Continuously Automate Build, Test &amp; Deployment<br>
Start a new project now. Try Jenkins in the cloud.<br>
<a href=3D"http://p.sf.net/sfu/13600_Cloudbees" target=3D"_blank">http://p.=
sf.net/sfu/13600_Cloudbees</a><br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Bitcoin-development mailing list<br>
<a href=3D"mailto:Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net">Bitcoin-develo=
pment@lists.sourceforge.net</a><br>
<a href=3D"https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development=
" target=3D"_blank">https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-de=
velopment</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div>

--20cf307ac14162270604f6a1b97e--