Received: from sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.194] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-3.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1VvNjO-0006Ke-Oa for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Tue, 24 Dec 2013 08:52:50 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of taplink.co designates 50.117.27.232 as permitted sender) client-ip=50.117.27.232; envelope-from=jeremy@taplink.co; helo=mail.taplink.co; Received: from mail.taplink.co ([50.117.27.232]) by sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with smtp (Exim 4.76) id 1VvNjM-0000o7-Tf for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Tue, 24 Dec 2013 08:52:50 +0000 Received: from laptop-air.hsd1.ca.comcast.net ([192.168.168.135]) by mail.taplink.co ; Tue, 24 Dec 2013 00:52:57 -0800 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15; format=flowed; delsp=yes Date: Tue, 24 Dec 2013 00:52:46 -0800 To: "bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: "Jeremy Spilman" Organization: TapLink Message-ID: User-Agent: Opera Mail/1.0 (Win32) oclient: 192.168.168.135#jeremy@taplink.co#465 X-Spam-Score: -2.1 (--) 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 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record -0.6 RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay domain -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 0.0 URIBL_BLOCKED ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to URIBL was blocked. See http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/DnsBlocklists#dnsbl-block for more information. [URIs: taplink.co] X-Headers-End: 1VvNjM-0000o7-Tf Subject: [Bitcoin-development] Peer Discovery and Overlay 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: Tue, 24 Dec 2013 08:52:50 -0000 Some really nice efforts out there to map and analyze the bitcoin P2P network. The current protocol apparently recommends returning up to 2500 addresses from 'getaddr'. I'm not sure how much clients are expected to probe the address space in order to select 'far-apart' peers, or how much such an process would even attempt to achieve. How much does it matter if the ability to discover the entire network of peers is fast or slow? There are probably pros and cons to both. Is there any thought to how existing bitcoin node relations, and the ease at which peers can be discovered, becomes a service in itself, or even possibly a vulnerability? Are there any past instances of applications hijacking or interfacing with the exiting p2p messages, or abusing 'getaddr' functionality? Are there any guidelines on this, or should there be?