Received: from sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.194]
	helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
	by sfs-ml-1.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
	(envelope-from <gmaxwell@gmail.com>) id 1UWXcL-0001bY-KP
	for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
	Sun, 28 Apr 2013 19:50:37 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
	designates 209.85.215.53 as permitted sender)
	client-ip=209.85.215.53; envelope-from=gmaxwell@gmail.com;
	helo=mail-la0-f53.google.com; 
Received: from mail-la0-f53.google.com ([209.85.215.53])
	by sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
	(Exim 4.76) id 1UWXcD-0008Nu-Iy
	for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
	Sun, 28 Apr 2013 19:50:37 +0000
Received: by mail-la0-f53.google.com with SMTP id eg20so4795319lab.26
	for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
	Sun, 28 Apr 2013 12:50:22 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.152.3.227 with SMTP id f3mr14937687laf.2.1367178622859; Sun,
	28 Apr 2013 12:50:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.112.6.193 with HTTP; Sun, 28 Apr 2013 12:50:22 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CANEZrP3FA-5z3gAC1aYbG2EOKM2eDyv7zX3S9+ia2ZJ0LPkKiA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAPg+sBjSe23eADMxu-1mx0Kg2LGkN+BSNByq0PtZcMxAMh0uTg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CANEZrP3FA-5z3gAC1aYbG2EOKM2eDyv7zX3S9+ia2ZJ0LPkKiA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 28 Apr 2013 12:50:22 -0700
Message-ID: <CAAS2fgSo6Ua8giSKhYTjGm=2U1nBjprHOBqCL7dSNr9MQX_6tw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell@gmail.com>
To: Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
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
	(gmaxwell[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: 1UWXcD-0008Nu-Iy
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Service bits for pruned nodes
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: Sun, 28 Apr 2013 19:50:37 -0000

On Sun, Apr 28, 2013 at 9:29 AM, Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net> wrote:
> I'd imagined that nodes would be able to pick their own ranges to keep
> rather than have fixed chosen intervals. "Everything or two weeks" is rat=
her

X most recent is special for two reasons:  It meshes well with actual deman=
d,
and the data is required for reorganization.

So whatever we do for historic data, N most recent should be treated
specially.

But I also agree that its important that <everything> be splittable into ra=
nges
because otherwise when having to choose between serving historic data
and=E2=80=94 say=E2=80=94 40 GB storage, a great many are going to choose n=
ot to serve
historic data... and so nodes may be willing to contribute 4-39 GB storage
to the network there will be no good way for them to do so and we may end
up with too few copies of the historic data available.

As can be seen in the graph, once you get past the most recent 4000
blocks the probability is fairly uniform... so "N most recent" is not a
good way to divide load for the older blocks. But simple ranges=E2=80=94 pe=
rhaps
quantized to groups of 100 or 1000 blocks or something=E2=80=94 would work =
fine.

This doesn't have to come in the first cut, however=E2=80=94 and it needs n=
ew
addr messages in any case.