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
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
|
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 <andy@coinbase.com>) id 1WmpP1-0004cE-0n
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Tue, 20 May 2014 19:08:43 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of coinbase.com
designates 209.85.223.170 as permitted sender)
client-ip=209.85.223.170; envelope-from=andy@coinbase.com;
helo=mail-ie0-f170.google.com;
Received: from mail-ie0-f170.google.com ([209.85.223.170])
by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1WmpOy-00025y-PJ
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Tue, 20 May 2014 19:08:42 +0000
Received: by mail-ie0-f170.google.com with SMTP id at1so945324iec.29
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Tue, 20 May 2014 12:08:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=1e100.net; s=20130820;
h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date
:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type;
bh=OKXerZS8+IC2BzbDj4LJe7SbxSKyixMmSgmIh8bDoM8=;
b=DruW+x8CUGCi1eUxEvLZF2VEfbcglY1CGPA0S/Ls2palYCeejNrPm0WWFo/ADaTSBb
Asc+BQTU41SMfUmXfzSexKXwo3aL29U52Ap2ElQJkk5phJn56BF/n/EO1/5HQzzK3dTQ
Gy+KKg8IKZUMUzmzmrFxqs6Gmz03kEMZNDa8yrgXEK69C+LckBQMGKRHISIOVwCFDSKN
myRii1sNOOxREuPz/hnmQ/1GX0GqzchOnD8Cx8u7NsFfaHAFBNaxihBg1CS5k/R/ZD7C
y27K/izsViqP3EqUKisSGMGcCj1IVxM/a0OVcVoh9mJUrEU5ywauW/lDYcTn1FHFZ6Xi
Tpmw==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnkow9f3FlffAbiM832PuXd1J2p4gCo5fZIbZkK4H5XbRiuOIDjOhWpBiqzsm1Wwcfmlh9g
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.42.31.134 with SMTP id z6mr44594967icc.9.1400611593982; Tue,
20 May 2014 11:46:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.42.39.3 with HTTP; Tue, 20 May 2014 11:46:33 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <4078A034-6626-495D-B42F-BDA94ACE1DA3@gmail.com>
References: <CANEZrP2rgiQHpekEpFviJ22QsiV+s-F2pqosaZOA5WrRtJx5pg@mail.gmail.com>
<CANAnSg0ABVyRcSaO2aEcqO8qaj+JdxRN4z-hLE-EbESv2TMf2g@mail.gmail.com>
<trinity-1957ed0e-a607-47d7-803b-71c59af8eb89-1400573744536@3capp-mailcom-bs08>
<20140520143710.GT26986@leitl.org>
<4078A034-6626-495D-B42F-BDA94ACE1DA3@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 20 May 2014 11:46:33 -0700
Message-ID: <CALKy-wodNVZK+3q79YUJLmTRjihP85va4Mcp=mnUQTuUfLh+zg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Andy Alness <andy@coinbase.com>
To: Gmail <will.yager@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
X-Spam-Score: -1.5 (-)
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 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record
X-Headers-End: 1WmpOy-00025y-PJ
Cc: "bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net"
<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: Tue, 20 May 2014 19:08:43 -0000
Has there ever been serious discussion on extending the protocol to
support UDP transport? That would allow for NAT traversal and for many
more people to run effective nodes. I'm also curious if it could be
made improve block propagation time.
On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 7:52 AM, Gmail <will.yager@gmail.com> wrote:
> Unlikely. I doubt any significant portion of miners in china will continue to mine on a china-specific chain, since it will certainly be outmined by non-Chinese miners, and will be orphaned eventually.
>
> More likely is that mining interests in china will make special arrangements to circumvent the GFwOC.
>
> Users who can't access the worldwide blockchain will notice horrendously slow confirmation times and other side effects.
>
>> On May 20, 2014, at 10:37, Eugen Leitl <eugen@leitl.org>
>>
>> Could a blockchain fork due to network split happen?
>>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> "Accelerate Dev Cycles with Automated Cross-Browser Testing - For FREE
> Instantly run your Selenium tests across 300+ browser/OS combos.
> Get unparalleled scalability from the best Selenium testing platform available
> Simple to use. Nothing to install. Get started now for free."
> http://p.sf.net/sfu/SauceLabs
> _______________________________________________
> Bitcoin-development mailing list
> Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
>
--
Andy Alness
Software Engineer
Coinbase
San Francisco, CA
|
