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
|
Return-Path: <luke@dashjr.org>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BB364BBF
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Thu, 11 May 2017 19:25:28 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from zinan.dashjr.org (zinan.dashjr.org [192.3.11.21])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5319D1D9
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Thu, 11 May 2017 19:25:28 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from ishibashi.localnet (unknown
[IPv6:2001:470:5:265:a45d:823b:2d27:961c])
(Authenticated sender: luke-jr)
by zinan.dashjr.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 27C9438A0EB7;
Thu, 11 May 2017 19:24:23 +0000 (UTC)
X-Hashcash: 1:25:170511:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org::ZW6cWFYHtvM=t46p:bXE+n
X-Hashcash: 1:25:170511:dev@jonasschnelli.ch::4qcUF0qkpfa1kLSZ:dxO+5
From: Luke Dashjr <luke@dashjr.org>
To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org,
Jonas Schnelli <dev@jonasschnelli.ch>
Date: Thu, 11 May 2017 19:24:21 +0000
User-Agent: KMail/1.13.7 (Linux/4.9.16-gentoo; KDE/4.14.29; x86_64; ; )
References: <E1313B4E-6061-49CA-9E8C-E5FD468531C0@jonasschnelli.ch>
In-Reply-To: <E1313B4E-6061-49CA-9E8C-E5FD468531C0@jonasschnelli.ch>
X-PGP-Key-Fingerprint: E463 A93F 5F31 17EE DE6C 7316 BD02 9424 21F4 889F
X-PGP-Key-ID: BD02942421F4889F
X-PGP-Keyserver: hkp://pgp.mit.edu
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain;
charset="iso-8859-15"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <201705111924.22055.luke@dashjr.org>
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED,
RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=ham version=3.3.1
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
smtp1.linux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP proposal: NODE_NETWORK_LIMITED service bits
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev.lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/options/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 11 May 2017 19:25:28 -0000
> A peer signaling NODE_NETWORK_LIMITED_LOW & NODE_NETWORK_LIMITED_HIGH MUST
> be capable of serving at least the last 7'056 blocks (~49 days)
> (NODE_NETWORK_LIMITED_HIGH's value ^2).
Is 49 days particularly useful? Would it be a problem to instead leave both-
bits undefined? I'm thinking this might be better as a way to indicate "7
days, plus a deterministically chosen set of historical blocks"...
> Current Bitcoin-Core pruned full nodes guarantees a minimum of 288 blocks,
> thus allowing to signal NODE_NETWORK_LIMITED_LOW with the current minimum
> configuration.
This is technically true right now, but as soon as segwit activates, it will
no longer be... Therefore, I suggest striking it from the BIP, expounding on
it in greater detail, or making it true for the longer term.
> Peers following this BIP SHOULD connect a limited amount of their available
> outbound connections to peers signaling one or both of the
> NODE_NETWORK_LIMITED_* service bits if they expect to request less blocks
> than the signaled number.
This isn't entirely clear whether it refers to peers downloading blocks, or
peers serving them. (I assume the former, but it should be clarified.)
> Light clients (and such) who are not checking the nServiceFlags (service
> bits) from a relayed addr-message may unwillingly connect to a pruned peer
> and ask for (filtered) blocks at a depth below their pruned depth.
Wouldn't this already be a problem, without the BIP?
Luke
|
