Received: from sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.191] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-4.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1WXCrD-0008Cg-Sr for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Mon, 07 Apr 2014 16:57:15 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com designates 209.85.215.48 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.215.48; envelope-from=gmaxwell@gmail.com; helo=mail-la0-f48.google.com; Received: from mail-la0-f48.google.com ([209.85.215.48]) by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1WXCrD-00085K-2H for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Mon, 07 Apr 2014 16:57:15 +0000 Received: by mail-la0-f48.google.com with SMTP id gf5so5053068lab.35 for ; Mon, 07 Apr 2014 09:57:08 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.112.142.68 with SMTP id ru4mr2008829lbb.49.1396889828354; Mon, 07 Apr 2014 09:57:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.112.89.68 with HTTP; Mon, 7 Apr 2014 09:57:08 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <5342D1DB.8060203@monetize.io> References: <5342C833.5030906@gmail.com> <5342D1DB.8060203@monetize.io> Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2014 09:57:08 -0700 Message-ID: From: Gregory Maxwell To: Mark Friedenbach Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Score: 1.1 (+) 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) 1.2 RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET RBL: Received via a relay in bl.spamcop.net [Blocked - see ] -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 1.5 SF_NO_SPF_SPAM SF_NO_SPF_SPAM X-Headers-End: 1WXCrD-00085K-2H Cc: Bitcoin Development Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Why are we bleeding 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: Mon, 07 Apr 2014 16:57:16 -0000 On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 9:27 AM, Mark Friedenbach wrote: > Right now running a full-node on my home DSL connection (<1Mbps) makes > other internet activity periodically unresponsive. I think we've already > hit a point where resource requirements are pushing out casual users, > although of course we can't be certain that accounts for all lost nodes. That is an implementation issue=E2=80=94 mostly one that arises as an indir= ect consequence of not having headers first and the parallel fetch, not a requirements issue. Under the current bitcoin validity rules it should be completely reasonable to run a full contributing node with no more than 30 kb/s inbound (reviving two copies of everything, blocks + tansactions ) and 60 kbit/sec outbound (sending out four copies of everything). (So long as you're sending out >=3D what you're taking in you're contributing to the network's capacity). Throw in a factor of two for bursting, though not every node needs to be contributing super low latency capacity. This is absolutely not the case with the current implementation, but it's not a requirements thing.