1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
|
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 <gmaxwell@gmail.com>) 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 <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
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: <CANEZrP2rgiQHpekEpFviJ22QsiV+s-F2pqosaZOA5WrRtJx5pg@mail.gmail.com>
<5342C833.5030906@gmail.com>
<CAAS2fgTqBfEPXh2dfcL_ke6c0wfXw4qUM1rAYMkAHcAM6mYH+g@mail.gmail.com>
<5342D1DB.8060203@monetize.io>
Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2014 09:57:08 -0700
Message-ID: <CAAS2fgRu-0C_ozaN0qSc9SvF2TpZ56NwceLCrfQjikuQgc85tQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell@gmail.com>
To: Mark Friedenbach <mark@monetize.io>
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 <http://www.spamcop.net/bl.shtml?209.85.215.48>]
-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 <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
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: <bitcoin-development.lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_name=bitcoin-development>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 07 Apr 2014 16:57:16 -0000
On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 9:27 AM, Mark Friedenbach <mark@monetize.io> 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.
|
