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
|
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 <gmaxwell@gmail.com>) id 1WXD9W-0005v8-Tk
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Mon, 07 Apr 2014 17:16:10 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
designates 209.85.215.45 as permitted sender)
client-ip=209.85.215.45; envelope-from=gmaxwell@gmail.com;
helo=mail-la0-f45.google.com;
Received: from mail-la0-f45.google.com ([209.85.215.45])
by sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1WXD9W-0003UI-30
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Mon, 07 Apr 2014 17:16:10 +0000
Received: by mail-la0-f45.google.com with SMTP id hr17so5008498lab.4
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Mon, 07 Apr 2014 10:16:03 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.152.243.35 with SMTP id wv3mr2200216lac.47.1396890963482;
Mon, 07 Apr 2014 10:16:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.112.89.68 with HTTP; Mon, 7 Apr 2014 10:16:03 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <5342D9FA.8080102@monetize.io>
References: <CANEZrP2rgiQHpekEpFviJ22QsiV+s-F2pqosaZOA5WrRtJx5pg@mail.gmail.com>
<5342C833.5030906@gmail.com>
<CAAS2fgTqBfEPXh2dfcL_ke6c0wfXw4qUM1rAYMkAHcAM6mYH+g@mail.gmail.com>
<5342D1DB.8060203@monetize.io>
<CAAS2fgRu-0C_ozaN0qSc9SvF2TpZ56NwceLCrfQjikuQgc85tQ@mail.gmail.com>
<5342D9FA.8080102@monetize.io>
Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2014 10:16:03 -0700
Message-ID: <CAAS2fgT5xfYzup01+USkFmFWi=FtDfbPY1HPpTLyQ+6_ejGOZA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell@gmail.com>
To: Mark Friedenbach <mark@monetize.io>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Spam-Score: 1.1 (+)
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)
1.2 RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET RBL: Received via a relay in bl.spamcop.net
[Blocked - see <http://www.spamcop.net/bl.shtml?209.85.215.45>]
-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
1.5 SF_NO_SPF_SPAM SF_NO_SPF_SPAM
X-Headers-End: 1WXD9W-0003UI-30
Cc: Bitcoin Development <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Why are we bleeding 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: Mon, 07 Apr 2014 17:16:11 -0000
On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 10:01 AM, Mark Friedenbach <mark@monetize.io> wrote:
> On 04/07/2014 09:57 AM, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
>> That is an implementation issue=E2=80=94 mostly one that arises as an in=
direct
>> consequence of not having headers first and the parallel fetch, not a
>> requirements issue.
>
> Oh, absolutely. But the question "why are people not running full
> nodes?" has to do with the current implementation, not abstract
> capabilities of a future version of the bitcoind code base.
The distinction is very important because it's a matter of things we
can and should fix vs things that cannot be fixed except by changing
goals/incentives! Opposite approaches to handling them.
When I read "resource requirements of a full node are moving beyond" I
didn't extract from that that "there are implementation issues that
need to be improved to make it work better for low resource users" due
to the word "requirements".
|
