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
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
|
Received: from sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.193]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-2.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <jim618@fastmail.co.uk>) id 1UsHiP-0004si-KB
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Thu, 27 Jun 2013 19:18:45 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of fastmail.co.uk
designates 66.111.4.26 as permitted sender)
client-ip=66.111.4.26; envelope-from=jim618@fastmail.co.uk;
helo=out2-smtp.messagingengine.com;
Received: from out2-smtp.messagingengine.com ([66.111.4.26])
by sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256)
(Exim 4.76) id 1UsHiM-0007ut-4N
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Thu, 27 Jun 2013 19:18:45 +0000
Received: from compute3.internal (compute3.nyi.mail.srv.osa [10.202.2.43])
by gateway1.nyi.mail.srv.osa (Postfix) with ESMTP id 82AE920AFA
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Thu, 27 Jun 2013 15:18:36 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from web3.nyi.mail.srv.osa ([10.202.2.213])
by compute3.internal (MEProxy); Thu, 27 Jun 2013 15:18:36 -0400
Received: by web3.nyi.mail.srv.osa (Postfix, from userid 99)
id 4AE50B00003; Thu, 27 Jun 2013 15:18:36 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <1372360716.14869.140661249272837.1376DACB@webmail.messagingengine.com>
X-Sasl-Enc: 97+BFdQbliwUKlmM38WXSX25nvXDI2OMCKo4NjJLc9gG 1372360716
From: Jim <jim618@fastmail.co.uk>
To: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain
X-Mailer: MessagingEngine.com Webmail Interface - ajax-5ae8e04c
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2013 20:18:36 +0100
In-Reply-To: <CAAS2fgRE+gj0NrDMk-WamSU+mADJM1EqgR-6Sa2MNCbwq-0Gdw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1372353053.10405.140661249237317.77984E1F@webmail.messagingengine.com>
<CAJHLa0Ncac9Xt-AQBnpghqqpfR-j6Xtd9qVQoUe2dPp0kJvz1A@mail.gmail.com>
<201306271804.51009.luke@dashjr.org>
<CAAS2fgRE+gj0NrDMk-WamSU+mADJM1EqgR-6Sa2MNCbwq-0Gdw@mail.gmail.com>
X-Spam-Score: -0.7 (/)
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
(jim618[at]fastmail.co.uk)
-0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record
0.2 FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT Envelope-from freemail username ends in
digit (jim618[at]fastmail.co.uk)
0.6 URIBL_SBL Contains an URL listed in the SBL blocklist
[URIs: dashjr.org]
-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
X-Headers-End: 1UsHiM-0007ut-4N
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Proposal: MultiBit as default desktop
client on bitcoin.org
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: Thu, 27 Jun 2013 19:18:45 -0000
A few replies, in order of point raised:
Jeff:
Arguments against multibit default:
* Less testing, field experience on desktop
Yes this is true - downloads of multibit have typically been around
1/7th to 1/5th of bitcoin-QT downloads. It helps of course that
the bitcoinj networking/ object model is also used by Andreas
as you note.
Greg:
I think Mike has squashed the deadlocking problems with reentrant
locks (primarily in the Wallet). I haven't seen one in at least a month.
We discussed proxy support on the bitcoinj mailing list a while ago
and at the time the stumbling block was the Java library used for
the networking (Netty) did not support it. Mike or Miron would
know better than I if this is still the case.
Change address behaviour will improve significantly when HD
wallet support goes into multibit/ bitcoinj (I am hoping to get my
bit done over the summer). Matija Mazi has been working on a
Java impl of HD wallets so it is coming down the pipe but
there is a lot to do yet.
Connections out from MultiBit are:
+ 4 bitcoind nodes on port 8333
+ multibit.org (188.138.113.201) for help, current version info
(and probably more in future)
+ the currency ticker will make HTTP gets to the source of
whichever exchange(s) you have set up e.g MtGox, CampBX.
This calls should disappear if you switch the currency conversion
and ticker off.
I think that is all the connections out I make.
Mainly due to the exchanges abruptly changing their APIs and
breaking things we are planning to put in intermediate
"Exchange Data Provider" servers. Tim Molter is working on this
in his XChange project. That will enable us to patch the server
when things change and the multibits in the field won't be
affected. There will probably be a couple of these initially
for redundancy.
Alex: Yes I think most users migrate to blockchain.info or,
more recently coinbase.com. They are both good wallets
but I'd like to keep Bitcoin as P2P as possible.
Luke-Jr
I think you are right here on the number of full nodes versus
SPV nodes.
I don't think we even know yet what are the working ratios of
full nodes to SPV nodes. I haven't seen anybody do any
analysis on this.
I doubt multibit will ever participate in the Bitcoin network
other than as an SPV client. All the optimisation is to reduce
data traffic - it is effectively a mobile wallet that happens to
live on a desktop. It is not really intended to be more than
"a wallet for regular people to store and spend their bitcoin".
In English the nomenclature for direction of the transactions
is: "Sent to" and "Received with". To be honest I
haven't transliterated the localisation files to check other
language packs but the localisers are pretty good in my
experience.
On Thu, Jun 27, 2013, at 07:41 PM, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 11:04 AM, Luke-Jr <luke@dashjr.org> wrote:
> > On Thursday, June 27, 2013 5:30:21 PM Jeff Garzik wrote:
> >> * Very real possibility of an overall net reduction of full nodes on P2P
> >> network
> > Even a reduction of *nodes at all*, as I've never seen a listening bitcoinj or
> > MultiBit node. :/
> > Jim, will MultiBit be adding p2p listening support?
>
> Without validation listening isn't currently very useful. :( Maybe it
> could be somewhat more with some protocol additions.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> This SF.net email is sponsored by Windows:
>
> Build for Windows Store.
>
> http://p.sf.net/sfu/windows-dev2dev
> _______________________________________________
> Bitcoin-development mailing list
> Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
--
https://multibit.org Money, reinvented
|
