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
|
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 <gavinandresen@gmail.com>) id 1VBBMY-0002vK-Hr
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Sun, 18 Aug 2013 22:22:18 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
designates 74.125.82.45 as permitted sender)
client-ip=74.125.82.45; envelope-from=gavinandresen@gmail.com;
helo=mail-wg0-f45.google.com;
Received: from mail-wg0-f45.google.com ([74.125.82.45])
by sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1VBBMW-000880-OM
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Sun, 18 Aug 2013 22:22:18 +0000
Received: by mail-wg0-f45.google.com with SMTP id x12so3025995wgg.24
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Sun, 18 Aug 2013 15:22:10 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.180.189.9 with SMTP id ge9mr5816196wic.52.1376864530555;
Sun, 18 Aug 2013 15:22:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.194.156.163 with HTTP; Sun, 18 Aug 2013 15:22:10 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CANEZrP2jONtRJ6oF1YqKJB9nm1HcMkfz_yzeNshEWqD-5fdNiA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20130818025932.GA372@savin>
<CANEZrP2jONtRJ6oF1YqKJB9nm1HcMkfz_yzeNshEWqD-5fdNiA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2013 08:22:10 +1000
Message-ID: <CABsx9T2Jz1LUvKP38pMRGt6Vp5USzCUQL_F-pqsMsVygVzhiiQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Gavin Andresen <gavinandresen@gmail.com>
To: Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c343023f670e04e44041ef
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
(gavinandresen[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: 1VBBMW-000880-OM
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] NODE_BLOOM BIP
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: Sun, 18 Aug 2013 22:22:18 -0000
--001a11c343023f670e04e44041ef
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Mike pointed out exactly the reason I oppose a NODE_BLOOM service bit: I
also think it is a bad idea to start making various bits and pieces of the
protocol optional.
It is bad for privacy (easier to fingerprint nodes) and bad for
decentralization (fewer nodes support your required feature set). And every
bit you add can give you an exponential number of combinations your QA team
should test.
I'd say the same thing about NODE_TRANSACTION ("I don't know about blocks,
have and NODE_BLOCK bits.
--
--
Gavin Andresen
--001a11c343023f670e04e44041ef
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<div dir=3D"ltr">Mike pointed out exactly the reason I oppose a NODE_BLOOM =
service bit: I also think it is a bad idea to start making various bits and=
pieces of the protocol optional.<div><br></div><div>It is bad for privacy =
(easier to fingerprint nodes) and bad for decentralization (fewer nodes sup=
port your required feature set). And every bit you add can give you an expo=
nential number of combinations your QA team should test.<br>
<div class=3D"gmail_extra"><div><br></div><div>I'd say the same thing a=
bout NODE_TRANSACTION ("I don't know about blocks, have and NODE_B=
LOCK bits.</div><div><br></div>-- <br>--<br>Gavin Andresen<br>
</div></div></div>
--001a11c343023f670e04e44041ef--
|
