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 ) id 1WXzZA-0000eO-Qi for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Wed, 09 Apr 2014 20:57:52 +0000 Received: from mail-pd0-f172.google.com ([209.85.192.172]) by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1WXzZ9-0000yd-9g for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Wed, 09 Apr 2014 20:57:52 +0000 Received: by mail-pd0-f172.google.com with SMTP id p10so2936310pdj.3 for ; Wed, 09 Apr 2014 13:57:45 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:message-id:date:from:organization:user-agent :mime-version:to:subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=4IIt3NhhzjDZKqjEMxjbl5FbAnrZ9BQkxEz8FYhIr5k=; b=Sp2H2SZslqtr8nYXHwenytFk7hPsW3lcY6sVeKqVxCJloI6/g9qAUlkGHgNUzCfVYe b0IFpxWXeYx1A9RWzlTT310JH5miFxXeT6gK3/pUzyIX+wcq7wpwXOX9FyS+NGptF1RA tc5wKhARSTCNJ6kTdkRR8tYqdei2VkA/zSfJgUk1yn1pCH7t6tMWJz0IHO99H+rQGTze yZFQ1MJZOp17VWVsacceZmFwa7bVrppk/VKO6SQfqlHf5y/DXym9Ud46CyWs1ytvrCLf zcdSFGLle/A5LSnpTCebm9UDOTnRvV2n+MfPo/fSUXOUpd7TushM1p2Cke2529SCvSPo VSOw== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkLua2H1aMufYlbzmtmxr+W5A/E5OQGI/XMulRVLl/SfDsVtKA6a/ODDwpEJVSmukWNIl11 X-Received: by 10.66.144.102 with SMTP id sl6mr14681546pab.96.1397077065155; Wed, 09 Apr 2014 13:57:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.127.223] (50-0-36-93.dsl.dynamic.sonic.net. [50.0.36.93]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id sy1sm9878608pab.30.2014.04.09.13.57.43 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Wed, 09 Apr 2014 13:57:44 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <5345AF53.8070700@monetize.io> Date: Wed, 09 Apr 2014 13:36:35 -0700 From: Mark Friedenbach Organization: Monetize.io Inc. User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.4.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net References: <53456B99.9010207@monetize.io> <00b77560-d7ed-4ed4-a4e5-eb1f00467a06@email.android.com> <0509477C-89F9-47C7-8820-29ACAD4A4A8E@bitsofproof.com> <534592E2.7040800@gmail.com> <5345986C.3040901@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 1.6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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 [209.85.192.172 listed in list.dnswl.org] X-Headers-End: 1WXzZ9-0000yd-9g 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: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 09 Apr 2014 20:57:53 -0000 I've advocated for this in the past, and reasonable counter-arguments I was presented with are: (1) bittorrent is horribly insecure - it would be easy to DoS the initial block download if that were the goal, and (2) there's a reasonable pathway to doing this all in-protocol, so there's no reason to introduce external dependencies. On 04/09/2014 01:31 PM, slush wrote: > 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 > 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 > wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 11:58 AM, Justus Ranvier > > 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 > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > 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 >