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
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
|
Received: from sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.191]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-2.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <laanwj@gmail.com>) id 1Rv2zK-0002Hq-9Z
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Wed, 08 Feb 2012 08:34:50 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
designates 209.85.160.47 as permitted sender)
client-ip=209.85.160.47; envelope-from=laanwj@gmail.com;
helo=mail-pw0-f47.google.com;
Received: from mail-pw0-f47.google.com ([209.85.160.47])
by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1Rv2zE-0006s6-SN
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Wed, 08 Feb 2012 08:34:50 +0000
Received: by pbcum15 with SMTP id um15so246443pbc.34
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Wed, 08 Feb 2012 00:34:39 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.68.74.69 with SMTP id r5mr67075515pbv.118.1328690079027; Wed,
08 Feb 2012 00:34:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.142.43.2 with HTTP; Wed, 8 Feb 2012 00:34:38 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CAD2Ti2_vGc+SJX_+uTz4ZVk1r5DhCOm6n3yKW16o9QaPKTQkHQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAD2Ti2_vGc+SJX_+uTz4ZVk1r5DhCOm6n3yKW16o9QaPKTQkHQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2012 09:34:38 +0100
Message-ID: <CA+s+GJCh4n2BAj=sFfUnUBgcJuJ9EPe=5qYftZ8SogDX_EQATg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Wladimir <laanwj@gmail.com>
To: grarpamp <grarpamp@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=bcaec54693e52d51f104b86fc4c0
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
(laanwj[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: 1Rv2zE-0006s6-SN
Cc: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Scaling at the end user level
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, 08 Feb 2012 08:34:50 -0000
--bcaec54693e52d51f104b86fc4c0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
On Wed, Feb 8, 2012 at 6:18 AM, grarpamp <grarpamp@gmail.com> wrote:
> A freshly deployed client on an old p4 has been idly crunching away
> at building and verifying the initial chain for about a week now. It
> should be done in a day or two. This seems rather untenable for
> new users. Have any groups published proposals for distributing
> a weekly precomputed bootstrap chain?
> rsync? db_dump > git > db_load?
> There is also 50% or more compression available in the index
> and chain.
>
I have proposed packaging part of the block chain (doesn't even have to be
weekly, just until the last checkpoint), but people fear it runs contrary
to the distributed approach of Bitcoin.
Which is kind of true:
- If it is imported un-validated, you have to rely on the packager to lie
to you (insert false transactions etc)
- If it has to be validated, you win nothing, your computer has to crunch
for days anyway
BTW: On such an old computer you should probably use one of the thin
clients.
Wladimir
--bcaec54693e52d51f104b86fc4c0
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<div><br></div><div><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Wed, Feb 8, 2012 at 6:18 =
AM, grarpamp <span dir=3D"ltr"><<a href=3D"mailto:grarpamp@gmail.com">gr=
arpamp@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote"=
style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
A freshly deployed client on an old p4 has been idly crunching away<br>
at building and verifying the initial chain for about a week now. It<br>
should be done in a day or two. This seems rather untenable for<br>
new users. Have any groups published proposals for distributing<br>
a weekly precomputed bootstrap chain?<br>
rsync? db_dump > git > db_load?<br>
There is also 50% or more compression available in the index<br>
and chain.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I have proposed packaging pa=
rt of the block chain (doesn't even have to be weekly, just until the l=
ast checkpoint), but people fear it runs contrary to the distributed approa=
ch of Bitcoin.</div>
<div><br></div><div>Which is kind of true:</div><div><br></div><div>- If it=
is imported un-validated, you have to rely on the packager to lie to you (=
insert false transactions etc)</div><div>- If it has to be validated, you w=
in nothing, your computer has to crunch for days anyway</div>
<div><br></div><div>BTW: On such an old computer you should probably use on=
e of the thin clients.<br><div><br></div><div>Wladimir</div></div><div><br>=
</div></div></div>
--bcaec54693e52d51f104b86fc4c0--
|
