path: root/d2/8ca610bee44f73e1842ec5acddbe50bd672a48

Received: from sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.191]
	helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
	by sfs-ml-1.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
	(envelope-from <marek@palatinus.cz>) id 1WXz9p-0004u8-7z
	for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
	Wed, 09 Apr 2014 20:31:41 +0000
X-ACL-Warn: 
Received: from mail-vc0-f171.google.com ([209.85.220.171])
	by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
	(Exim 4.76) id 1WXz9n-0008TP-Kw
	for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
	Wed, 09 Apr 2014 20:31:41 +0000
Received: by mail-vc0-f171.google.com with SMTP id lg15so2576694vcb.16
	for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
	Wed, 09 Apr 2014 13:31:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
	d=1e100.net; s=20130820;
	h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from
	:date:message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type;
	bh=z8mJQugyErkJR0lk4+wScGfn2Zj7qZCKLL+hM4SoWRA=;
	b=Sm+FxIQzfeHVmgwFmETAqTQTUT6IMSWysMe1oa3dFbX0oNecqzJa5Ghl2kuGO7r1BM
	3os3MTLjgSWdnzxYoNYQCJO7DyBI3fLLZlwfhjMKaH9y8yrIXT18IWoGsWrnxHcu7TAU
	sLhYXZBz3xGJaE/UEojnS45AChDBWxoXDcXdn13NkOqwypyOGVdmHQRxeRvqwP8Z6pX3
	U++vz0BEc2NiutI44ar1VZtd/coiZZOxs93dHJwNgDd0W4qUufxhOdcbIM/ATzohlcwc
	W9eMaVYcvNgRRQyExICsjh12R5ypSwpS73I0UGVUGh1qwiV34qOYujajpQC1q0exvfvJ
	NFQA==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQklCwgffE3BTQQhGvL6Mgttg/jK3mEPwiWX9Dd2XiL2tdglRFHI6PaNXwO2s4AfaCF4XfHA
X-Received: by 10.220.4.132 with SMTP id 4mr10687398vcr.9.1397075494055; Wed,
	09 Apr 2014 13:31:34 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: marek@palatinus.cz
Received: by 10.58.234.100 with HTTP; Wed, 9 Apr 2014 13:31:03 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAJna-Hj1U5cQ22bSXoNB-4ck_urCuS9xCk+iEHsbh+yv17MP7A@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CA+s+GJCn9U2kmyMH6w3o+m99NCfO0ws=SccvGBYJv07WVuF=eA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAADm4BCEFCiOpNzUThPPHUamP2256izU8pwD3nerLCxks0wENA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAAS2fgTx40XSLhiygnJMrSbOC=iJ2YMVLNK7-AMt3ifvAHDZUA@mail.gmail.com>
	<E9BAD633-3B6A-4A2C-AA06-DB591973DF66@bitsofproof.com>
	<53456B99.9010207@monetize.io>
	<B2FEC170-7214-4E46-8830-153995870B62@bitsofproof.com>
	<00b77560-d7ed-4ed4-a4e5-eb1f00467a06@email.android.com>
	<0509477C-89F9-47C7-8820-29ACAD4A4A8E@bitsofproof.com>
	<CANEZrP2Q=TG+jejEVFFh5FhjzDDkySHNSTfwtKueLcHu=pB6Kw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CA+s+GJBRvDFgktTgW2sCvAVahrjxcGqfgHw0BVNPvwUupotVrg@mail.gmail.com>
	<534592E2.7040800@gmail.com>
	<CAAS2fgS3q6N9go-NSKdjLwgU_5bFwa8YE88DcjNYHQTwzPCn3Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<5345986C.3040901@gmail.com>
	<CAAS2fgQyXHNnBDKoUMd_=-=1irGJ6cFKwi59enLJvFJiWBv50A@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAJna-Hj1U5cQ22bSXoNB-4ck_urCuS9xCk+iEHsbh+yv17MP7A@mail.gmail.com>
From: slush <slush@centrum.cz>
Date: Wed, 9 Apr 2014 22:31:03 +0200
X-Google-Sender-Auth: 4FiIlpB-HpDORoAWhjpfHCFzfd8
Message-ID: <CAJna-HiwRcvY1xPg5pkZDyjQhimnNiLM9a16YHOPu+ggod6A5A@mail.gmail.com>
To: slush <slush@centrum.cz>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c3a2c68c43f204f6a1fc2a
X-Spam-Score: 1.0 (+)
X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net.
	See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details.
	0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider
	(slush[at]centrum.cz)
	1.0 HTML_MESSAGE           BODY: HTML included in message
X-Headers-End: 1WXz9n-0008TP-Kw
Cc: Bitcoin Development <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Bitcoind-in-background mode for SPV
	wallets
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, 09 Apr 2014 20:31:41 -0000

--001a11c3a2c68c43f204f6a1fc2a
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

Another idea: Integrate torrent download of bootstrap.dat into bitcoind.
Normal user (especially a beginner) won't learn how to download bootstrap
separately and import it into bitcoind; he simply give up the
synchronization once he realize it takes too much time. From my experience
downloading the bootstrap significantly improves catching the blockchain,
which may attract some more users to run bitcoind.

Not sure about C++, but simple torrent client in python is like 30 lines of
code (using libtorrent).

Marek


On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 10:12 PM, slush <slush@centrum.cz> wrote:

> I believe there're plenty bitcoind instances running, but they don't have
> configured port forwarding properly.There's uPNP support in bitcoind, but
> it works only on simple setups.
>
> Maybe there're some not yet considered way how to expose these *existing*
> instances to Internet, to strenghten the network. Maybe just self-test
> indicating the node is not reachable from outside (together with short
> howto like in some torrent clients).
>
> These days IPv6 is slowly deploying to server environments, but maybe
> there's some simple way how to bundle ipv6 tunnelling into bitcoind so any
> instance will become ipv6-reachable automatically?
>
> Maybe there're other ideas how to improve current situation without needs
> of reworking the architecture.
>
> Marek
>
>
> On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 9:33 PM, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 11:58 AM, Justus Ranvier <justusranvier@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> > Anyone reading the archives of the list will see about triple the
>> > number of people independently confirming the resource usage problem
>> > than they will see denying it, so I'm not particularly worried.
>>
>> The list has open membership, there is no particular qualification or
>> background required to post here. Optimal use of an information source
>> requires critical reading and understanding the limitations of the
>> medium. Counting comments is usually not a great way to assess
>> technical considerations on an open public forum.  Doubly so because
>> those comments were not actually talking about the same thing I am
>> talking about.
>>
>> Existing implementations are inefficient in many known ways (and, no
>> doubt, some unknown ones). This list is about developing protocol and
>> implementations including improving their efficiency.  When talking
>> about incentives the costs you need to consider are the costs of the
>> best realistic option.  As far as I know there is no doubt from anyone
>> technically experienced that under the current network rules full
>> nodes can be operated with vastly less resources than current
>> implementations use, it's just a question of the relatively modest
>> implementation improvements.
>>
>> When you argue that Bitcoin doesn't have the right incentives (and
>> thus something??) I retort that the actual resource _requirements_ are
>> for the protocol very low. I gave specific example numbers to enable
>> correction or clarification if I've said something wrong or
>> controversial. Pointing out that existing implementations are not that
>> currently as efficient as the underlying requirements and that some
>> large number of users do not like the efficiency of existing
>> implementations doesn't tell me anything I disagree with or didn't
>> already know. Whats being discussed around here contributes to
>> prioritizing improvements over the existing implementations.
>>
>> I hope this clarifies something.
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Put Bad Developers to Shame
>> Dominate Development with Jenkins Continuous Integration
>> Continuously Automate Build, Test & Deployment
>> Start a new project now. Try Jenkins in the cloud.
>> http://p.sf.net/sfu/13600_Cloudbees
>> _______________________________________________
>> Bitcoin-development mailing list
>> Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
>>
>
>

--001a11c3a2c68c43f204f6a1fc2a
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr">Another idea: Integrate torrent download of bootstrap.dat =
into bitcoind. Normal user (especially a beginner) won&#39;t learn how to d=
ownload bootstrap separately and import it into bitcoind; he simply give up=
 the synchronization once he realize it takes too much time. From my experi=
ence downloading the bootstrap significantly improves catching the blockcha=
in, which may attract some more users to run bitcoind.<div>


<br></div><div>Not sure about C++, but simple torrent client in python is l=
ike 30 lines of code (using libtorrent).</div><div><br></div><div>Marek</di=
v><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Wed, Apr=
 9, 2014 at 10:12 PM, slush <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=3D"mailto:slush@c=
entrum.cz" target=3D"_blank">slush@centrum.cz</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br>


<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1p=
x #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr">I believe there&#39;re plen=
ty bitcoind instances running, but they don&#39;t have configured port forw=
arding properly.There&#39;s uPNP support in bitcoind, but it works only on =
simple setups.<div>


<br></div><div>
Maybe there&#39;re some not yet considered way how to expose these *existin=
g* instances to Internet, to strenghten the network. Maybe just self-test i=
ndicating the node is not reachable from outside (together with short howto=
 like in some torrent clients).</div>



<div><br></div><div>These days IPv6 is slowly deploying to server environme=
nts, but maybe there&#39;s some simple way how to bundle ipv6 tunnelling in=
to bitcoind so any instance will become ipv6-reachable automatically?</div>



<div><br></div><div>Maybe there&#39;re other ideas how to improve current s=
ituation without needs of reworking the architecture.</div><div><br></div><=
div>Marek</div></div><div><div><div class=3D"gmail_extra">
<br><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">
On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 9:33 PM, Gregory Maxwell <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a hr=
ef=3D"mailto:gmaxwell@gmail.com" target=3D"_blank">gmaxwell@gmail.com</a>&g=
t;</span> wrote:<br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0=
 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">



<div>On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 11:58 AM, Justus Ranvier &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:=
justusranvier@gmail.com" target=3D"_blank">justusranvier@gmail.com</a>&gt; =
wrote:<br>
&gt; Anyone reading the archives of the list will see about triple the<br>
&gt; number of people independently confirming the resource usage problem<b=
r>
&gt; than they will see denying it, so I&#39;m not particularly worried.<br=
>
<br>
</div>The list has open membership, there is no particular qualification or=
<br>
background required to post here. Optimal use of an information source<br>
requires critical reading and understanding the limitations of the<br>
medium. Counting comments is usually not a great way to assess<br>
technical considerations on an open public forum. =A0Doubly so because<br>
those comments were not actually talking about the same thing I am<br>
talking about.<br>
<br>
Existing implementations are inefficient in many known ways (and, no<br>
doubt, some unknown ones). This list is about developing protocol and<br>
implementations including improving their efficiency. =A0When talking<br>
about incentives the costs you need to consider are the costs of the<br>
best realistic option. =A0As far as I know there is no doubt from anyone<br=
>
technically experienced that under the current network rules full<br>
nodes can be operated with vastly less resources than current<br>
implementations use, it&#39;s just a question of the relatively modest<br>
implementation improvements.<br>
<br>
When you argue that Bitcoin doesn&#39;t have the right incentives (and<br>
thus something??) I retort that the actual resource _requirements_ are<br>
for the protocol very low. I gave specific example numbers to enable<br>
correction or clarification if I&#39;ve said something wrong or<br>
controversial. Pointing out that existing implementations are not that<br>
currently as efficient as the underlying requirements and that some<br>
large number of users do not like the efficiency of existing<br>
implementations doesn&#39;t tell me anything I disagree with or didn&#39;t<=
br>
already know. Whats being discussed around here contributes to<br>
prioritizing improvements over the existing implementations.<br>
<br>
I hope this clarifies something.<br>
<div><div><br>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------=
---<br>
Put Bad Developers to Shame<br>
Dominate Development with Jenkins Continuous Integration<br>
Continuously Automate Build, Test &amp; Deployment<br>
Start a new project now. Try Jenkins in the cloud.<br>
<a href=3D"http://p.sf.net/sfu/13600_Cloudbees" target=3D"_blank">http://p.=
sf.net/sfu/13600_Cloudbees</a><br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Bitcoin-development mailing list<br>
<a href=3D"mailto:Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net" target=3D"_bla=
nk">Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net</a><br>
<a href=3D"https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development=
" target=3D"_blank">https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-de=
velopment</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div></div>

--001a11c3a2c68c43f204f6a1fc2a--