Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of googlemail.com
	designates 74.125.83.43 as permitted sender)
	client-ip=74.125.83.43;
	envelope-from=john.dillon892@googlemail.com;
	helo=mail-ee0-f43.google.com; 
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAAS2fgRE+gj0NrDMk-WamSU+mADJM1EqgR-6Sa2MNCbwq-0Gdw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1372353053.10405.140661249237317.77984E1F@webmail.messagingengine.com>
	<CAJHLa0Ncac9Xt-AQBnpghqqpfR-j6Xtd9qVQoUe2dPp0kJvz1A@mail.gmail.com>
	<201306271804.51009.luke@dashjr.org>
	<CAAS2fgRE+gj0NrDMk-WamSU+mADJM1EqgR-6Sa2MNCbwq-0Gdw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2013 10:59:32 +0000
Message-ID: <CAPaL=UWt3n6NDRB_N0sUvSH1k=RZotL+LchON75NpKVG2JKEHw@mail.gmail.com>
From: John Dillon <john.dillon892@googlemail.com>
To: Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Proposal: MultiBit as default desktop
 client on bitcoin.org
Precedence: list

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 6:41 PM, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 11:04 AM, Luke-Jr <luke@dashjr.org> wrote:
>> On Thursday, June 27, 2013 5:30:21 PM Jeff Garzik wrote:
>>> * Very real possibility of an overall net reduction of full nodes on P2P
>>> network
>> Even a reduction of *nodes at all*, as I've never seen a listening bitcoinj or
>> MultiBit node. :/
>> Jim, will MultiBit be adding p2p listening support?
>
> Without validation listening isn't currently very useful. :( Maybe it
> could be somewhat more with some protocol additions.

Possible non-validation data that can be usefully propagated:

1) Block headers.

2) *Confirmed* transactions linked to an aformentioned blockheader.

3) Proof-of-work/sacrifice limited P2P messages, for instance to
co-ordinate trust-free-mixes or act as a communication channel for
micropayment channels.

4) With UTXO existance proof support propagate transactions
accompanied by proofs that all inputs exist. This would also allow for
implementation of Peter's low-bandwidth decentralized P2Pool proposal.

5) UTXO fraud proofs. (one day)


Strictly speaking #2 doesn't even need the protocol to be changed
actually as it can be handled entirely within the existing INV/getdata
mechanism. Sure someone could throw away a lot of hashing power and
get an invalid block propagated, but really so what? SPV nodes should
always take confirmations with a grain of salt anyway.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)

iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJRzWx8AAoJEEWCsU4mNhiPlTkIAJKzFsT65o6LoU70hbaBsu3g
aBdjYZSCnJ9+qWI2tqqUBedq2etbt71hAfWNnTXvFus+0iVB1HWJClW155319vuH
Xi1m9G3O0NzX1d+cssMPxFBHsl4Rz6XYICrYyVEe2X554Zawdg6I53+1INHRfsBT
1vmq5Bxgopt0Tk9Vf8HNdRt/IXZJaPYm1PEzJHFppuOvl5+Fpypy3t/QXdsP8puP
LnRdL7Bxfu3BSWrSRZo7l5Fpww3Y/vdNYCL4jDD/ME+36wi4CUM3psL8lsk81lB4
3t/ytF4y/adT/dEEtMj7BGWS0TIMMH0NyeCjqBdStiQsVfoowLCVfpuDzouZ6yY=
=TI1m
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----