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
|
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 <bip@mattwhitlock.name>) id 1Yx6qe-00052b-K8
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Tue, 26 May 2015 04:52:16 +0000
X-ACL-Warn:
Received: from resqmta-po-06v.sys.comcast.net ([96.114.154.165])
by sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES128-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1Yx6qd-0005Ye-9o
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Tue, 26 May 2015 04:52:16 +0000
Received: from resomta-po-07v.sys.comcast.net ([96.114.154.231])
by resqmta-po-06v.sys.comcast.net with comcast
id YUs91q0044zp9eg01Us9Vv; Tue, 26 May 2015 04:52:09 +0000
Received: from crushinator.localnet
([IPv6:2601:6:4800:47f:1e4e:1f4d:332c:3bf6])
by resomta-po-07v.sys.comcast.net with comcast
id YUs81q00A2JF60R01Us8Sd; Tue, 26 May 2015 04:52:09 +0000
From: Matt Whitlock <bip@mattwhitlock.name>
To: Jim Phillips <jim@ergophobia.org>
Date: Tue, 26 May 2015 00:52:07 -0400
Message-ID: <23111107.dfGN69SrR9@crushinator>
User-Agent: KMail/4.14.8 (Linux/3.18.11-gentoo; KDE/4.14.8; x86_64; ; )
In-Reply-To: <CANe1mWzeLsOWv+2qwx1b3s61HqCwy5GLd2Rv3LgWLrOa_jkFjw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CANe1mWwi+fxFU43_2mq-yd_qRsmCwMu_c5wWOpvFS4Un_FoT+Q@mail.gmail.com>
<2916218.tfdjj1Sv9m@crushinator>
<CANe1mWzeLsOWv+2qwx1b3s61HqCwy5GLd2Rv3LgWLrOa_jkFjw@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
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 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/,
no trust [96.114.154.165 listed in list.dnswl.org]
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: 1Yx6qd-0005Ye-9o
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Zero-Conf for Full Node Discovery
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: Tue, 26 May 2015 04:52:16 -0000
On Monday, 25 May 2015, at 11:48 pm, Jim Phillips wrote:
> Do any wallets actually do this yet?
Not that I know of, but they do seed their address database via DNS, which you can poison if you control the LAN's DNS resolver. I did this for a Bitcoin-only Wi-Fi network I operated at a remote festival. We had well over a hundred lightweight wallets, all trying to connect to the Bitcoin P2P network over a very bandwidth-constrained Internet link, so I poisoned the DNS and rejected all outbound connection attempts on port 8333, to force all the wallets to connect to a single local full node, which had connectivity to a single remote node over the Internet. Thus, all the lightweight wallets at the festival had Bitcoin network connectivity, but we only needed to backhaul the Bitcoin network's transaction traffic once.
> On May 25, 2015 11:37 PM, "Matt Whitlock" <bip@mattwhitlock.name> wrote:
>
> > This is very simple to do. Just ping the "all nodes" address (ff02::1) and
> > try connecting to TCP port 8333 of each node that responds. Shouldn't take
> > but more than a few milliseconds on any but the most densely populated LANs.
> >
> >
> > On Monday, 25 May 2015, at 11:06 pm, Jim Phillips wrote:
> > > Is there any work being done on using some kind of zero-conf service
> > > discovery protocol so that lightweight clients can find a full node on
> > the
> > > same LAN to peer with rather than having to tie up WAN bandwidth?
> > >
> > > I envision a future where lightweight devices within a home use SPV over
> > > WiFi to connect with a home server which in turn relays the transactions
> > > they create out to the larger and faster relays on the Internet.
> > >
> > > In a situation where there are hundreds or thousands of small SPV devices
> > > in a single home (if 21, Inc. is successful) monitoring the blockchain,
> > > this could result in lower traffic across the slow WAN connection. And
> > > yes, I realize it could potentially take a LOT of these devices before
> > the
> > > total bandwidth is greater than downloading a full copy of the
> > blockchain,
> > > but there's other reasons to host your own full node -- trust being one.
> > >
> > > --
> > > *James G. Phillips IV*
> > > <https://plus.google.com/u/0/113107039501292625391/posts>
> > > <http://www.linkedin.com/in/ergophobe>
> > >
> > > *"Don't bunt. Aim out of the ball park. Aim for the company of
> > immortals."
> > > -- David Ogilvy*
> > >
> > > *This message was created with 100% recycled electrons. Please think
> > twice
> > > before printing.*
> >
|
