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
105
106
107
108
109
|
Received: from sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.192]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-3.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <decker.christian@gmail.com>) id 1QW2w6-0006oo-Cs
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Mon, 13 Jun 2011 08:55:54 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
designates 209.85.216.47 as permitted sender)
client-ip=209.85.216.47;
envelope-from=decker.christian@gmail.com;
helo=mail-qw0-f47.google.com;
Received: from mail-qw0-f47.google.com ([209.85.216.47])
by sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1QW2w1-0006o5-MJ
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Mon, 13 Jun 2011 08:55:54 +0000
Received: by qwh5 with SMTP id 5so2766781qwh.34
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Mon, 13 Jun 2011 01:55:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.229.114.77 with SMTP id d13mr3545970qcq.219.1307955344199;
Mon, 13 Jun 2011 01:55:44 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.229.247.6 with HTTP; Mon, 13 Jun 2011 01:55:04 -0700 (PDT)
From: Christian Decker <decker.christian@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2011 10:55:04 +0200
Message-ID: <BANLkTin_qs4bDabnu+b3K1hTzLzr4JKHsg@mail.gmail.com>
To: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=000e0cd6aa44ac4f1404a5941521
X-Spam-Score: -0.6 (/)
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 freemail
(decker.christian[at]gmail.com)
-0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record
1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message
-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
0.0 RFC_ABUSE_POST Both abuse and postmaster missing on sender domain
0.0 T_TO_NO_BRKTS_FREEMAIL T_TO_NO_BRKTS_FREEMAIL
X-Headers-End: 1QW2w1-0006o5-MJ
Subject: [Bitcoin-development] Bootstrapping via BitTorrent trackers
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: Mon, 13 Jun 2011 08:55:54 -0000
--000e0cd6aa44ac4f1404a5941521
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Hi all.
Just wanted to carry the discussion from the Forum over to the dev-list.
We have quite a few bootstrapping mechanisms, starting with the overly
complex (IMHO) IRC bootstrapping, which is often suspected as bot-activity.
Then we have a few hardcoded nodes and some fallback nodes. I was wondering
why we didn't adopt BitTorrent tracker bootstrapping until now? It's
basically all it does. Given a hash (SHA1 hash of the genesis bloc would be
nice ^^) it gives you a list of other nodes with the same hash.
Given that there are quite a few open trackers (accepting and tracking any
hash you throw at them) we could just decide to use 2-3 of those to
bootstrap.
The downside would be that they return bencoded data, which has to be
interpreted first, but it's easier than implementing the IRC stuff, I think.
Any comments?
Regards,
Chris
--000e0cd6aa44ac4f1404a5941521
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi all.<br><br>Just wanted to carry the discussion from the Forum over to t=
he dev-list.<br><br>We have quite a few bootstrapping mechanisms, starting =
with the overly complex (IMHO) IRC bootstrapping, which is often suspected =
as bot-activity. Then we have a few hardcoded nodes and some fallback nodes=
. I was wondering why we didn't adopt BitTorrent tracker bootstrapping =
until now? It's basically all it does. Given a hash (SHA1 hash of the g=
enesis bloc would be nice ^^) it gives you a list of other nodes with the s=
ame hash.<br>
<br>Given that there are quite a few open trackers (accepting and tracking =
any hash you throw at them) we could just decide to use 2-3 of those to boo=
tstrap.<br><br>The downside would be that they return bencoded data, which =
has to be interpreted first, but it's easier than implementing the IRC =
stuff, I think.<br>
<br>Any comments?<br><br>Regards,<br>Chris<br>
--000e0cd6aa44ac4f1404a5941521--
|
