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
|
Received: from sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.193]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-2.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <jgarzik@exmulti.com>) id 1SUirY-0000en-SJ
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Wed, 16 May 2012 18:22:16 +0000
X-ACL-Warn:
Received: from mail-lpp01m010-f47.google.com ([209.85.215.47])
by sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1SUirX-00057J-J8
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Wed, 16 May 2012 18:22:16 +0000
Received: by lags15 with SMTP id s15so1033185lag.34
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Wed, 16 May 2012 11:22:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=google.com; s=20120113;
h=mime-version:x-originating-ip:in-reply-to:references:date
:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type
:content-transfer-encoding:x-gm-message-state;
bh=dMKMxOjHUkVz7spsEKtEf0CPCXlKs3vKgCaEtFJAxes=;
b=YfC1ilT9K6TkSmRO4FUFNUw5/YDAmF3hflUj1fbMJi/zCApFXYtdq9gLDNq2ozV2iA
+QlHPtEUifsVICvQg38H2odyubYHRdjC1PdHjVTkzTrjMGnU0rQ2h920DzbJSJFMJExo
pLNtBQ8Aq+xpRu1oaWtHqYynpriyZC9gv/fZ/idkO9a/3G0jky88idJfEx2h2UZpAYdt
CoG2PANwOAd9vYzw8FvfNWsUKGtRG/A7w6H+6jRgbTxrtfUJmPd5qinkscBlHwfWNWe6
jmRTUg7Qwafg4xZ6QIY1HGD1SsYhedy4wQ5eoJCsnrudeuksQWlAd1Pex/gFqoxLcZ4+
FaTQ==
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.112.28.10 with SMTP id x10mr1786221lbg.41.1337192528985; Wed,
16 May 2012 11:22:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.114.25.97 with HTTP; Wed, 16 May 2012 11:22:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Originating-IP: [99.43.178.25]
In-Reply-To: <CANEZrP1t-xhHqJ0xGQwxxx-ddtRh7jtn9Yhcau2prKNt+PZHgw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1337186094.12490.YahooMailNeo@web121005.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>
<CANEZrP1t-xhHqJ0xGQwxxx-ddtRh7jtn9Yhcau2prKNt+PZHgw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 16 May 2012 14:22:08 -0400
Message-ID: <CA+8xBpeUq5O1bfQzfoLzot+Hmr28xBXG7uUhL4O8P_owXO0=Mg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@exmulti.com>
To: Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlG67afTqogNL861hV6LnlDAc0QczwGI6GBxotfnftfeKvisOoQAcuGg4gTyUbOBi6UR1b5
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net.
See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details.
0.0 AWL AWL: From: address is in the auto white-list
X-Headers-End: 1SUirX-00057J-J8
Cc: "bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net"
<bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] BIP 33 - Stratized 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: Wed, 16 May 2012 18:22:16 -0000
On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 12:46 PM, Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net> wrote:
> Thanks for getting this started.
>
> With regards to the specific proposal, I don't believe it's the best opti=
on
> and still plan to eventually implement the original design outlined more
> than a year ago in this thread:
>
> =A0=A0https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3D7972.msg116285#msg116285
>
> Namely that you use a new protocol command to set a Bloom filter on a
> connection. Only transactions matching that filter will appear in relayed
> inventory. Blocks that are requested will arrive as a header plus
> transaction/merkle branch pairs. Clients are expected to maintain and tra=
ck
> the block chain as per usual, but instead of downloading the whole chain =
and
> then dropping the irrelevant transactions, that filtering is done server
> side. By strengthening or weakening the Bloom filters you can choose your
> preferred point on the privacy/bandwidth-usage spectrum. It is a fairly
> simple change to the Satoshi and BitcoinJ codebases but still allows clie=
nts
> to gain confidence in their balance by examining the chain, and this is t=
rue
> even in the presence of a hijacked internet connection (you can't trust
> pending transactions that way, but you can still trust confirmed
> transactions).
Makes sense.
In an idealized model of a client as a set of private keys, they will
want to (a) notice new activity on these keys, (b) notice increased
confidence on existing transactions with those keys [confirmations],
and (c) be able to submit to the network new transactions. Your
proposal covers those bases, I believe.
--=20
Jeff Garzik
exMULTI, Inc.
jgarzik@exmulti.com
|
