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
|
Received: from sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.194]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-4.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <bitcoin-list@bluematt.me>) id 1VgmPH-0001Ed-MO
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Thu, 14 Nov 2013 02:11:43 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of bluematt.me
designates 192.241.179.72 as permitted sender)
client-ip=192.241.179.72; envelope-from=bitcoin-list@bluematt.me;
helo=mail.bluematt.me;
Received: from mail.bluematt.me ([192.241.179.72])
by sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256)
(Exim 4.76) id 1VgmPG-00055m-UB
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Thu, 14 Nov 2013 02:11:43 +0000
Received: from [10.232.233.22] (vps.bluematt.me [173.246.101.161])
by mail.bluematt.me (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id DF3C148FA3;
Thu, 14 Nov 2013 02:11:36 +0000 (UTC)
Message-ID: <52843157.9000609@bluematt.me>
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2013 21:11:35 -0500
From: Matt Corallo <bitcoin-list@bluematt.me>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64;
rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net>
References: <5279D89D.5000609@bluematt.me> <CAE-z3OXQiT-6OXddb9_jpY2Qqbfs+BKAVv3M-rQ4eedwBS2MAg@mail.gmail.com> <527AD246.9050906@bluematt.me>
<CANEZrP2Jr-tOEXan_bq_g1Zi2mpyN96oD-aCh-m51HyAfN7pXw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CANEZrP2Jr-tOEXan_bq_g1Zi2mpyN96oD-aCh-m51HyAfN7pXw@mail.gmail.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.6
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Spam-Score: -1.5 (-)
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 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record
-0.0 RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay
domain
X-Headers-End: 1VgmPG-00055m-UB
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] [ANN] High-speed Bitcoin Relay Network
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: Thu, 14 Nov 2013 02:11:43 -0000
On 11/08/13 06:46, Mike Hearn wrote:
> I took a brief look at the code - it's looking very reasonable. You can
> replace any construct like
>
> try {
> Thread.sleep(1000);
> } catch (InterruptedException e) {
> throw new RuntimeException(e);
> }
>
> which is quite verbose, just with
> Uninterruptibles.sleepUninterruptably(1000, TimeUnit.MILLISECONDS); (and
> of course static imports help too)
Thanks, fixed.
>
> I think for this concept to take off, you'd need a website and to
> recruit someone to help you market it. Pool operators won't reach out to
> you.
Yes, I've done some initial outreach and plan on doing another major
round now that the initial network is up and Im working on running some
relay time benchmarks. Finding someone to help push peering would be
nice, if you have any suggestions, Im all ears.
>
> I still find it perhaps more elegant to just boost the connectivity of
> the existing network with bitcoind changes, but this can help for now.
Agreed, improving relay times across the regular P2P network would be
nice, however I really dont see this as a part of the P2P network. Its
more of a backup relay network that just happens to follow the P2P
protocol (mostly, it doesnt do full block verification, so technically
it breaks spec). In this model, this is really a nice augment to the P2P
network no matter what improvements are made. Having more protocols/ways
blocks are relayed is always nice (anyone wanna launch a satellite?)
Matt
|
