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
|
Received: from sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.192]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-1.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <mh.in.england@gmail.com>) id 1WoUrI-0005My-Gy
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Sun, 25 May 2014 09:36:48 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
designates 209.85.214.174 as permitted sender)
client-ip=209.85.214.174; envelope-from=mh.in.england@gmail.com;
helo=mail-ob0-f174.google.com;
Received: from mail-ob0-f174.google.com ([209.85.214.174])
by sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1WoUrH-0004pO-HB
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Sun, 25 May 2014 09:36:48 +0000
Received: by mail-ob0-f174.google.com with SMTP id uz6so7017419obc.5
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Sun, 25 May 2014 02:36:41 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.60.70.200 with SMTP id o8mr11902550oeu.55.1401010600957;
Sun, 25 May 2014 02:36:40 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: mh.in.england@gmail.com
Received: by 10.76.71.162 with HTTP; Sun, 25 May 2014 02:36:40 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAAS2fgSJh83YEZjRfL81sKjC=nSKHtWT1qzS0evLJ9Gy6qdA1w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAOXABZohe93SSRm1FN5ai2H97eBJV2j+LAjA-39YAaNmX=ep0Q@mail.gmail.com>
<CAAS2fgSJh83YEZjRfL81sKjC=nSKHtWT1qzS0evLJ9Gy6qdA1w@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 25 May 2014 11:36:40 +0200
X-Google-Sender-Auth: APPv4jr5S2TlyZiPFK9Uff5MSms
Message-ID: <CANEZrP0wtyagZeSe7kRwk08Td-O5RGz_vwbTNm_v69VdfUuorw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net>
To: Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11334460325c1d04fa36330d
X-Spam-Score: -0.5 (/)
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
(mh.in.england[at]gmail.com)
-0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record
1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message
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: 1WoUrH-0004pO-HB
Cc: Bitcoin Development <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Cut-through propagation of blocks
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: Sun, 25 May 2014 09:36:48 -0000
--001a11334460325c1d04fa36330d
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
> There
> is no need to have Bitcoin transport all using a single protocol, and
> we can get better robustness and feature velocity if there are a
> couple protocols in use (you could just run a block-transport-protocol
> daemon that connects to your local node via the classic protocol).
Although this is a somewhat appealing notion, would it really improve
feature velocity? I don't think the current p2p protocol is holding
anything back, and having to implement features twice in two protocols
would slow things down quite a bit.
Probably the lowest hanging fruit now is fixing the 100msec sleep and just
generally having tools to measure latency and queuing inside the code.
--001a11334460325c1d04fa36330d
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<div dir=3D"ltr"><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><blo=
ckquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #c=
cc solid;padding-left:1ex">There<br>
is no need to have Bitcoin transport all using a single protocol, and<br>
we can get better robustness and feature velocity if there are a<br>
couple protocols in use (you could just run a block-transport-protocol<br>
daemon that connects to your local node via the classic protocol).</blockqu=
ote><div><br></div><div>Although this is a somewhat appealing notion, would=
it really improve feature velocity? I don't think the current p2p prot=
ocol is holding anything back, and having to implement features twice in tw=
o protocols would slow things down quite a bit.</div>
<div><br></div><div>Probably the lowest hanging fruit now is fixing the 100=
msec sleep and just generally having tools to measure latency and queuing i=
nside the code.=C2=A0</div></div></div></div>
--001a11334460325c1d04fa36330d--
|
