Received: from sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.193] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-3.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1WXwdT-0006fP-RE for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Wed, 09 Apr 2014 17:50:07 +0000 X-ACL-Warn: Received: from wp059.webpack.hosteurope.de ([80.237.132.66]) by sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.76) id 1WXwdS-0007RH-4S for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Wed, 09 Apr 2014 17:50:07 +0000 Received: from [37.143.74.116] (helo=[192.168.2.2]); authenticated by wp059.webpack.hosteurope.de running ExIM with esmtpsa (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) id 1WXwdL-0000vL-Kl; Wed, 09 Apr 2014 19:49:59 +0200 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_23FC7464-7F3D-4716-AAC2-CFCE1C92CD0F"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha1 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.2 \(1874\)) From: Tamas Blummer In-Reply-To: <00b77560-d7ed-4ed4-a4e5-eb1f00467a06@email.android.com> Date: Wed, 9 Apr 2014 19:50:03 +0200 Message-Id: <0509477C-89F9-47C7-8820-29ACAD4A4A8E@bitsofproof.com> References: <53456B99.9010207@monetize.io> <00b77560-d7ed-4ed4-a4e5-eb1f00467a06@email.android.com> To: Peter Todd X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1874) X-bounce-key: webpack.hosteurope.de; tamas@bitsofproof.com; 1397065806; 63070a6d; X-Spam-Score: 1.0 (+) X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net. See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details. 1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message X-Headers-End: 1WXwdS-0007RH-4S Cc: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Bitcoind-in-background mode for SPV wallets 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: Wed, 09 Apr 2014 17:50:08 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_23FC7464-7F3D-4716-AAC2-CFCE1C92CD0F Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_3904231C-30E5-4CED-858C-47877849F81A" --Apple-Mail=_3904231C-30E5-4CED-858C-47877849F81A Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Block header has to be available in SPV and also in an UTXO only storing = core node, so why not serve it if bandwith allows. Serving any additional information like known peer adresses or known = full blocks is certainly beneficial and should be offered if at hand. Regards, Tamas Blummer http://bitsofproof.com On 09.04.2014, at 19:46, Peter Todd wrote: > Signed PGP part >=20 >=20 > On 9 April 2014 12:27:13 GMT-04:00, Tamas Blummer = wrote: > >A border router that is not able to serve blocks is still protecting > >consensus rules, that SPVs do not. > >If the network would only consist of SPV nodes only then e.g. a > >majority coalition of miner could increase their reward at will. > > > >Archives need a different solution. >=20 > Any collective group that has a majority of hashing power will have no = major issues running enough nodes that follow their rules to make SPV = insecure anyway. >=20 > There's no good reason not to have SPV security nodes distribute block = chain data, particularly block headers. It helps provide redundancy in = the network topology and helps provide more resources for full nodes to = sync up faster. For instance in a network with a large number of partial = UTXO set nodes if those nodes are forwarding block data to each other = they can get enough data to become fully fledged full nodes without = putting all the load on the existing full nodes. This is a good thing. >=20 >=20 >=20 --Apple-Mail=_3904231C-30E5-4CED-858C-47877849F81A Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Block = header has to be available in SPV and also in an UTXO only storing core = node, so why not serve it if bandwith allows.

Serving any additional information like = known peer adresses or known full blocks is certainly beneficial and = should be offered if at hand.

Regards,

Tamas = Blummer
http://bitsofproof.com

On 09.04.2014, at 19:46, Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org> = wrote:

Signed PGP part


On 9 April 2014 12:27:13 GMT-04:00, = Tamas Blummer <tamas@bitsofproof.com> = wrote:
>A border router that is not able to serve blocks is still = protecting
>consensus rules, that SPVs do not.
>If the = network would only consist of SPV nodes only then e.g. a
>majority = coalition of miner could increase their reward at = will.
>
>Archives need a different solution.

Any = collective group that has a majority of hashing power will have no major = issues running enough nodes that follow their rules to make SPV insecure = anyway.

There's no good reason not to have SPV security nodes = distribute block chain data, particularly block headers. It helps = provide redundancy in the network topology and helps provide more = resources for full nodes to sync up faster. For instance in a network = with a large number of partial UTXO set nodes if those nodes are = forwarding block data to each other they can get enough data to become = fully fledged full nodes without putting all the load on the existing = full nodes.  This is a = good = thing.




= --Apple-Mail=_3904231C-30E5-4CED-858C-47877849F81A-- --Apple-Mail=_23FC7464-7F3D-4716-AAC2-CFCE1C92CD0F Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJTRYhLAAoJEPZykcUXcTkcT5sIAKiPzOywyjtZqH1cmcckBezf zqYmRfMNzY3Lh+H7Tm8eMhccK2UsaHMvrjMK7J5k80qVLKhC0a96O6oFBzUMpM3U h5TV8kM4q0hi/SQ9gtPj/vFeC1xsbgyJSFWmfiJdOzUjWO5v2dLSgl9Dn+ZQU9Wb JeJu9cNwqWsdG0xgEILdlLbhTlJ6+LTXRqCPZpC902OecaF0oTUG2A6CBatvqcfN FN9nH/OHFxKeGCep66N+e01v2up3MN4IrT2jzPeREukGJrX0xMkht5kH9MX9rbC4 B5DzAEu9xlEbWwd/0lN0+RV5sAIKp1vYREbiAlgC7px6Qn92p0Jk0GpAfIBLpy4= =5UV9 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Apple-Mail=_23FC7464-7F3D-4716-AAC2-CFCE1C92CD0F--