Received: from sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.192] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-1.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1WoUrI-0005My-Gy for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Sun, 25 May 2014 09:36:48 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com designates 209.85.214.174 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.214.174; envelope-from=mh.in.england@gmail.com; helo=mail-ob0-f174.google.com; Received: from mail-ob0-f174.google.com ([209.85.214.174]) by sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1WoUrH-0004pO-HB for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Sun, 25 May 2014 09:36:48 +0000 Received: by mail-ob0-f174.google.com with SMTP id uz6so7017419obc.5 for ; Sun, 25 May 2014 02:36:41 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.60.70.200 with SMTP id o8mr11902550oeu.55.1401010600957; Sun, 25 May 2014 02:36:40 -0700 (PDT) Sender: mh.in.england@gmail.com Received: by 10.76.71.162 with HTTP; Sun, 25 May 2014 02:36:40 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Sun, 25 May 2014 11:36:40 +0200 X-Google-Sender-Auth: APPv4jr5S2TlyZiPFK9Uff5MSms Message-ID: From: Mike Hearn To: Gregory Maxwell Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11334460325c1d04fa36330d X-Spam-Score: -0.5 (/) 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 (mh.in.england[at]gmail.com) -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record 1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message 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: 1WoUrH-0004pO-HB Cc: Bitcoin Development Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Cut-through propagation of blocks 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, 25 May 2014 09:36:48 -0000 --001a11334460325c1d04fa36330d Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 > > There > is no need to have Bitcoin transport all using a single protocol, and > we can get better robustness and feature velocity if there are a > couple protocols in use (you could just run a block-transport-protocol > daemon that connects to your local node via the classic protocol). Although this is a somewhat appealing notion, would it really improve feature velocity? I don't think the current p2p protocol is holding anything back, and having to implement features twice in two protocols would slow things down quite a bit. Probably the lowest hanging fruit now is fixing the 100msec sleep and just generally having tools to measure latency and queuing inside the code. --001a11334460325c1d04fa36330d Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
There
is no need to have Bitcoin transport all using a single protocol, and
we can get better robustness and feature velocity if there are a
couple protocols in use (you could just run a block-transport-protocol
daemon that connects to your local node via the classic protocol).

Although this is a somewhat appealing notion, would= it really improve feature velocity? I don't think the current p2p prot= ocol is holding anything back, and having to implement features twice in tw= o protocols would slow things down quite a bit.

Probably the lowest hanging fruit now is fixing the 100= msec sleep and just generally having tools to measure latency and queuing i= nside the code.=C2=A0
--001a11334460325c1d04fa36330d--