1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
|
Received: from sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.193]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-2.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <jgarzik@exmulti.com>) id 1UXXMO-0002hn-6y
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Wed, 01 May 2013 13:46:16 +0000
X-ACL-Warn:
Received: from mail-pd0-f176.google.com ([209.85.192.176])
by sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1UXXMM-0002Mx-DQ
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Wed, 01 May 2013 13:46:16 +0000
Received: by mail-pd0-f176.google.com with SMTP id r10so822348pdi.7
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Wed, 01 May 2013 06:46:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=google.com; s=20120113;
h=mime-version:x-received:x-originating-ip:in-reply-to:references
:date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type:x-gm-message-state;
bh=W4Qjm6qZrVaKb7OjruBwRGhUTueWOC3YHnIqtw/SKzc=;
b=pzqFw9SsgVGJ5dF6r63vnfpk31I6hdw1eV6Lj95eViQdk0x68bdeHvvL9QGqqGaqaE
RBE0gVKLkiWx7t3YW/vc/vTUFrrA4bCKwd3HnurMRCOhKLq1qizhjj1n5hrsubE44Aqc
1XEmeXxcnE42DqGE+7d9d1T5vCLL9Js15BWWvgIzMcm90WPnmcC1Vvj5+SrytMkGxMlR
R4QKTIJ2/TmBWylWoDu9f6seEcqK6PqEfL2sXN4PYC5W6eewYdSON2KNNMVdfznhhfsN
T1CJU5UstM5tk9jxHWexB6iSX0pjPA0XO99FlDmsFi4g7DCKcy08bNKCa+H9d1q7JrC+
4ArA==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.68.130.132 with SMTP id oe4mr4169328pbb.116.1367415968478;
Wed, 01 May 2013 06:46:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.68.240.106 with HTTP; Wed, 1 May 2013 06:46:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Originating-IP: [99.43.178.25]
In-Reply-To: <CAPg+sBjSe23eADMxu-1mx0Kg2LGkN+BSNByq0PtZcMxAMh0uTg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAPg+sBjSe23eADMxu-1mx0Kg2LGkN+BSNByq0PtZcMxAMh0uTg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 1 May 2013 09:46:08 -0400
Message-ID: <CA+8xBpcN0Oz8yyAPRbs-Nfrgcnq8T-ANdF5aro54KkTTs9ZfNg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@exmulti.com>
To: Pieter Wuille <pieter.wuille@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmT35aZKvjzHt3Wf3IeJ4mMkRPkIR4T6n38U+hoOuV+ZdsrlJc3Fo6NkrAfHlgG+1PU12xW
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net.
See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details.
-0.0 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/,
no trust [209.85.192.176 listed in list.dnswl.org]
X-Headers-End: 1UXXMM-0002Mx-DQ
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Service bits for pruned nodes
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: Wed, 01 May 2013 13:46:16 -0000
On Sun, Apr 28, 2013 at 11:51 AM, Pieter Wuille <pieter.wuille@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> I think it is time to move forward with pruning nodes, i.e. nodes that fully
> validate and relay blocks and transactions, but which do not keep (all)
> historic blocks around, and thus cannot be queried for these.
>
> The biggest roadblock is making sure new and old nodes that start up are
> able to find nodes to synchronize from. To help them find peers, I would
> like to propose adding two extra service bits to the P2P protocol:
> * NODE_VALIDATE: relay and validate blocks and transactions, but is only
> guaranteed to answer getdata requests for (recently) relayed blocks and
> transactions, and mempool transactions.
> * NODE_BLOCKS_2016: can be queried for the last 2016 blocks, but without
> guarantee for relaying/validating new blocks and transactions.
> * NODE_NETWORK (which existed before) will imply NODE_VALIDATE and guarantee
> availability of all historic blocks.
In general, I support this, as anybody on IRC knows.
Though it does seem to open the question about snapshotting.
Personally, it seems important to enable running a fully validating
node, that may bootstrap from a UTXO snapshot + all blocks since that
snapshot.
NODE_BLOCKS_2016, in particular, is too short. For users, I've seen
plenty of use cases in the field where you start a network sync after
a 2-week period.
Set a regular interval for creating a UTXO snapshot, say 3 months
(6*2016 blocks), and serve all blocks after that snapshot. For older
nodes, they would contact an archive node or torrent for >3 month
blocks, and then download normally <= 3 month blocks (if the archive
node didn't serve up to present day).
Where are we on nailing down a stable, hash-able UTXO serialization?
--
Jeff Garzik
exMULTI, Inc.
jgarzik@exmulti.com
|
