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
110
111
112
113
114
115
|
Received: from sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.194]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-2.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <laanwj@gmail.com>) id 1WYCrt-0006EL-9Z
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Thu, 10 Apr 2014 11:10:05 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
designates 209.85.223.179 as permitted sender)
client-ip=209.85.223.179; envelope-from=laanwj@gmail.com;
helo=mail-ie0-f179.google.com;
Received: from mail-ie0-f179.google.com ([209.85.223.179])
by sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1WYCrs-0006Jx-Jv
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Thu, 10 Apr 2014 11:10:05 +0000
Received: by mail-ie0-f179.google.com with SMTP id lx4so3757642iec.38
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Thu, 10 Apr 2014 04:09:59 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.43.151.134 with SMTP id ks6mr119498icc.85.1397128199326;
Thu, 10 Apr 2014 04:09:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.64.70.131 with HTTP; Thu, 10 Apr 2014 04:09:59 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <0B038624-8861-438E-B7B1-566B4A8E126B@bitsofproof.com>
References: <CA+s+GJCn9U2kmyMH6w3o+m99NCfO0ws=SccvGBYJv07WVuF=eA@mail.gmail.com>
<CAAt2M18z_Qkqat1OETiXAz0QQey4+y5J6=pC7nkoJfyfrpj3=A@mail.gmail.com>
<CAAS2fgScWkentFy7Ak0bpYVLsOFL+xkwPm5QRu9ENeX9oCtPug@mail.gmail.com>
<534570A2.9090502@gmx.de>
<CA+s+GJAXu3SEXFDDwi85dNFjO2rfPXJrg-aKHYwbogAHfu3vfQ@mail.gmail.com>
<0B038624-8861-438E-B7B1-566B4A8E126B@bitsofproof.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2014 13:09:59 +0200
Message-ID: <CA+s+GJCQSCUyq7Ajv0EgZ8Vbcv4Xt7G-y_8D12fsoKjyFjnhwg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Wladimir <laanwj@gmail.com>
To: Tamas Blummer <tamas@bitsofproof.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c2d30c06d38904f6ae42af
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 commonly abused enduser mail provider
(laanwj[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
X-Headers-End: 1WYCrs-0006Jx-Jv
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Bitcoind-in-background mode for SPV
wallets
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: Thu, 10 Apr 2014 11:10:05 -0000
--001a11c2d30c06d38904f6ae42af
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 8:04 AM, Tamas Blummer <tamas@bitsofproof.com>wrote:
> Serving headers should be default but storing and serving full blocks
> configurable to ranges, so people can tailor to their bandwith and space
> available.
>
I do agree that it is important.
This does require changes to the P2P protocol, as currently there is no way
for a node to signal that they store only part of the block chain. Also,
clients will have to be modified to take this into account. Right now they
are under the assumption that every full node can send them every
(previous) block.
What would this involve?
Do you know of any previous work towards this?
Wladimir
--001a11c2d30c06d38904f6ae42af
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">On T=
hu, Apr 10, 2014 at 8:04 AM, Tamas Blummer <span dir=3D"ltr"><<a href=3D=
"mailto:tamas@bitsofproof.com" target=3D"_blank">tamas@bitsofproof.com</a>&=
gt;</span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-=
left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div style=3D"word-wrap:b=
reak-word"><div>Serving headers should be default but storing and serving f=
ull blocks configurable to ranges, so people can tailor to their bandwith a=
nd space available.</div>
</div></blockquote><div><br>I do agree that it is important.<br><br></div><=
div>This does require changes to the P2P protocol, as currently there is no=
way for a node to signal that they store only part of the block chain. Als=
o, clients will have to be modified to take this into account. Right now th=
ey are under the assumption that every full node can send them every (previ=
ous) block.<br>
<br></div><div></div><div>What would this involve?<br></div><div><br>Do you=
know of any previous work towards this?<br></div><div><br>Wladimir<br></di=
v></div><br></div></div>
--001a11c2d30c06d38904f6ae42af--
|
