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
|
Received: from sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.193]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-1.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <gmaxwell@gmail.com>) id 1R0ZFy-0000Ir-DS
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Mon, 05 Sep 2011 13:30:34 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
designates 209.85.216.175 as permitted sender)
client-ip=209.85.216.175; envelope-from=gmaxwell@gmail.com;
helo=mail-qy0-f175.google.com;
Received: from mail-qy0-f175.google.com ([209.85.216.175])
by sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1R0ZFu-00065z-9c
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Mon, 05 Sep 2011 13:30:34 +0000
Received: by qyk4 with SMTP id 4so2037395qyk.13
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Mon, 05 Sep 2011 06:30:24 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.224.173.207 with SMTP id q15mr2538809qaz.278.1315229424803;
Mon, 05 Sep 2011 06:30:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.229.223.198 with HTTP; Mon, 5 Sep 2011 06:30:24 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CANEZrP3Fh=Ffeh5PtcaL4QBKXUzkFYAar4031-wVZOVQOhngrw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CANEZrP3Fh=Ffeh5PtcaL4QBKXUzkFYAar4031-wVZOVQOhngrw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 5 Sep 2011 09:30:24 -0400
Message-ID: <CAAS2fgQdRP5bd02tR_L6_hWh+qEwXWOVH8KRcpuFiRvKwD5o1w@mail.gmail.com>
From: Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell@gmail.com>
To: Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Spam-Score: -1.6 (-)
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
(gmaxwell[at]gmail.com)
-0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record
-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: 1R0ZFu-00065z-9c
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Adding a pong message to the protocol
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, 05 Sep 2011 13:30:34 -0000
On Mon, Sep 5, 2011 at 8:04 AM, Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net> wrote:
> I haven't written a patch for this, I might do so if there's
> sufficient interest.
[snip]
> Thoughts?
I'd rather see effort spent on the root issues, e.g. having nodes
gauge their own suitability (working inbound port, reasonably current
block chain, etc) before becoming advertised listeners.
Or more importantly=E2=80=94 figuring some way of setting up network
simulations which could be used to actually _validate_ proposed
changes in this area.
I, or many other people, could spout endlessly about attractive
sounding network enhancements (e.g. move-to-front peer prioritization,
tweaks to peer selection, etc.) but it's all just arm waving without a
way to measure it, and the real network is far too slow to upgrade
(and important) to test things in situ while testnet is far too small
and unlike the real network for useful testing.
|
