MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CANEZrP1t-xhHqJ0xGQwxxx-ddtRh7jtn9Yhcau2prKNt+PZHgw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1337186094.12490.YahooMailNeo@web121005.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>
	<CANEZrP1t-xhHqJ0xGQwxxx-ddtRh7jtn9Yhcau2prKNt+PZHgw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 16 May 2012 14:22:08 -0400
Message-ID: <CA+8xBpeUq5O1bfQzfoLzot+Hmr28xBXG7uUhL4O8P_owXO0=Mg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@exmulti.com>
To: Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: "bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net"
	<bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] BIP 33 - Stratized Nodes
Precedence: list

On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 12:46 PM, Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net> wrote:
> Thanks for getting this started.
>
> With regards to the specific proposal, I don't believe it's the best opti=
on
> and still plan to eventually implement the original design outlined more
> than a year ago in this thread:
>
> =A0=A0https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3D7972.msg116285#msg116285
>
> Namely that you use a new protocol command to set a Bloom filter on a
> connection. Only transactions matching that filter will appear in relayed
> inventory. Blocks that are requested will arrive as a header plus
> transaction/merkle branch pairs. Clients are expected to maintain and tra=
ck
> the block chain as per usual, but instead of downloading the whole chain =
and
> then dropping the irrelevant transactions, that filtering is done server
> side. By strengthening or weakening the Bloom filters you can choose your
> preferred point on the privacy/bandwidth-usage spectrum. It is a fairly
> simple change to the Satoshi and BitcoinJ codebases but still allows clie=
nts
> to gain confidence in their balance by examining the chain, and this is t=
rue
> even in the presence of a hijacked internet connection (you can't trust
> pending transactions that way, but you can still trust confirmed
> transactions).

Makes sense.

In an idealized model of a client as a set of private keys, they will
want to (a) notice new activity on these keys, (b) notice increased
confidence on existing transactions with those keys [confirmations],
and (c) be able to submit to the network new transactions.  Your
proposal covers those bases, I believe.

--=20
Jeff Garzik
exMULTI, Inc.
jgarzik@exmulti.com