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 ) 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 ; 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: References: Date: Sun, 28 Apr 2013 12:50:22 -0700 Message-ID: From: Gregory Maxwell To: Mike Hearn 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 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: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 28 Apr 2013 19:50:37 -0000 On Sun, Apr 28, 2013 at 9:29 AM, Mike Hearn 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 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.