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
|
Received: from sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.192]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-4.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <pieter.wuille@gmail.com>) id 1WYDDu-0003lS-G6
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Thu, 10 Apr 2014 11:32:50 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
designates 209.85.223.178 as permitted sender)
client-ip=209.85.223.178; envelope-from=pieter.wuille@gmail.com;
helo=mail-ie0-f178.google.com;
Received: from mail-ie0-f178.google.com ([209.85.223.178])
by sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1WYDDt-000368-KN
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Thu, 10 Apr 2014 11:32:50 +0000
Received: by mail-ie0-f178.google.com with SMTP id lx4so3625774iec.23
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Thu, 10 Apr 2014 04:32:44 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.42.120.15 with SMTP id d15mr12798467icr.35.1397129564317;
Thu, 10 Apr 2014 04:32:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.50.141.135 with HTTP; Thu, 10 Apr 2014 04:32:44 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CA+s+GJCQSCUyq7Ajv0EgZ8Vbcv4Xt7G-y_8D12fsoKjyFjnhwg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CA+s+GJCn9U2kmyMH6w3o+m99NCfO0ws=SccvGBYJv07WVuF=eA@mail.gmail.com>
<CAAt2M18z_Qkqat1OETiXAz0QQey4+y5J6=pC7nkoJfyfrpj3=A@mail.gmail.com>
<CAAS2fgScWkentFy7Ak0bpYVLsOFL+xkwPm5QRu9ENeX9oCtPug@mail.gmail.com>
<534570A2.9090502@gmx.de>
<CA+s+GJAXu3SEXFDDwi85dNFjO2rfPXJrg-aKHYwbogAHfu3vfQ@mail.gmail.com>
<0B038624-8861-438E-B7B1-566B4A8E126B@bitsofproof.com>
<CA+s+GJCQSCUyq7Ajv0EgZ8Vbcv4Xt7G-y_8D12fsoKjyFjnhwg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2014 13:32:44 +0200
Message-ID: <CAPg+sBjWL_hKhWW-6i=WAHnx+Ue5JE=A9RrxnWuAYOXw19qiDw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Pieter Wuille <pieter.wuille@gmail.com>
To: Wladimir <laanwj@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
X-Spam-Score: -1.6 (-)
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
(pieter.wuille[at]gmail.com)
-0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record
-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: 1WYDDt-000368-KN
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <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: Thu, 10 Apr 2014 11:32:50 -0000
There were earlier discussions.
The two ideas were either using one or a few service bits to indicate
availability of blocks, or to extend addr messages with some flags to
indicate this information.
I wonder whether we can't have a hybrid: bits to indicate general
degree of availability of blocks (none, only recent, everything), but
indicate actual availability only upon actually connecting (through a
"version" extension, or - preferably - a separate message). Reason is
that the actual blocks available are likely to change frequently (if
you keep the last week of blocks, a 3-day old addr entry will have
quite outdated information), and not that important to actual peer
selection - only to drive the decision which blocks to ask after
connection.
On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 1:09 PM, Wladimir <laanwj@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 8:04 AM, Tamas Blummer <tamas@bitsofproof.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> Serving headers should be default but storing and serving full blocks
>> configurable to ranges, so people can tailor to their bandwith and space
>> available.
>
>
> I do agree that it is important.
>
> This does require changes to the P2P protocol, as currently there is no way
> for a node to signal that they store only part of the block chain. Also,
> clients will have to be modified to take this into account. Right now they
> are under the assumption that every full node can send them every (previous)
> block.
>
> What would this involve?
>
> Do you know of any previous work towards this?
>
> Wladimir
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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
>
|
