Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
	designates 74.125.82.175 as permitted sender)
	client-ip=74.125.82.175; envelope-from=mh.in.england@gmail.com;
	helo=mail-we0-f175.google.com; 
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: mh.in.england@gmail.com
In-Reply-To: <1339766346.31489.49.camel@bmthinkpad>
References: <CA+8xBpecVQcTTbPxUm_3_GWC99dEd4=-VFWb+QT6jUy4rg8U4w@mail.gmail.com>
	<CANEZrP0kNZDByHpK2=UjP+ag0X1KmqHxnJdm=e_pWMitP4QvvA@mail.gmail.com>
	<1339766346.31489.49.camel@bmthinkpad>
Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2012 15:23:11 +0200
Message-ID: <CANEZrP3jj2ymQPH50g2PvzZhRzTnUnCLUjvBYj8ndBCJsnGJ-w@mail.gmail.com>
From: Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net>
To: Matt Corallo <bitcoin-list@bluematt.me>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Cc: Bitcoin Development <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] New P2P commands for diagnostics,
	SPV clients
Precedence: list

> > Why not combine these two?
>
> I believe its because it allows the node which will have to use the
> bloom filter to scan transactions to chose how much effort it wants to
> put into each transaction on behalf of the SPV client.

If that's the case then the negotiation protocol needs to be specified
too. It seems heavy though. If a node is getting overloaded it could
just disconnect intensive peers or refuse new connections.