Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
	designates 209.85.213.181 as permitted sender)
	client-ip=209.85.213.181; envelope-from=laanwj@gmail.com;
	helo=mail-ig0-f181.google.com; 
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAAS2fgT5-s-uukP8uTRKJ+pzwG-f9knetH44qQ78HsctG9_cZA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20140818164543.GB31175@localhost.localdomain>
	<CAAS2fgQZaDOtoh+_oaiZh6jMOacSuHbEM=vktBdThDP_7eRH0Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAPg+sBgzEMAQ03GTE2j82+K2B+Dia6T0z14ZYWsBQ8z8QSVoLg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAAS2fgRT8OQzUkneKwpjD15aLZDivT=hgBMTB63EjN8RBrp+RQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAAS2fgT5-s-uukP8uTRKJ+pzwG-f9knetH44qQ78HsctG9_cZA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2014 20:38:40 +0200
Message-ID: <CA+s+GJAV+YBDmDVk9Nvo_qAjk=WEBPhX-kqkX1fiUsLfGvEUkw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Wladimir <laanwj@gmail.com>
To: Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Cc: Bitcoin Development <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Fwd: Outbound connections rotation
Precedence: list

> The optimal strategy for avoiding linkages (ignoring tor, again), is
> to randomly pick a different peer for each transaction and relay the
> transaction only to that peer.  This can (and probably should) be
> distinct from your normal network connectivity.

It already happens with 8 peers that if you have lousy peers, the
transaction doesn't reach the network on the first broadcasting. When
sending to only one random peer it will likely be even worse.

I guess the wallet could send out the transaction 'staggered' over
time. It could pick a random new node, broadcast the transaction, wait
a bit, pick a new node, broadcast the transaction until it is comes
back through one of the other peers.

Separating the transaction broadcasting (of the wallet) from, for
example, the nodes used to request blocks from could make sense. Maybe
doubly so if bloom filters are involved.

Wladimir