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 <andyparkins@gmail.com>) id 1UXXek-0003v7-8d
	for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
	Wed, 01 May 2013 14:05:14 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
	designates 74.125.82.43 as permitted sender)
	client-ip=74.125.82.43; envelope-from=andyparkins@gmail.com;
	helo=mail-wg0-f43.google.com; 
Received: from mail-wg0-f43.google.com ([74.125.82.43])
	by sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
	(Exim 4.76) id 1UXXej-0003GA-I9
	for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
	Wed, 01 May 2013 14:05:14 +0000
Received: by mail-wg0-f43.google.com with SMTP id c11so1426643wgh.22
	for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
	Wed, 01 May 2013 07:05:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 10.194.89.234 with SMTP id br10mr3024476wjb.43.1367417107383;
	Wed, 01 May 2013 07:05:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from momentum.localnet ([91.84.15.31])
	by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id o3sm4185927wia.2.2013.05.01.07.05.05
	for <multiple recipients>
	(version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128);
	Wed, 01 May 2013 07:05:06 -0700 (PDT)
From: Andy Parkins <andyparkins@gmail.com>
To: Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@exmulti.com>
Date: Wed, 1 May 2013 15:05:03 +0100
User-Agent: KMail/1.13.7 (Linux/3.8-trunk-686-pae; KDE/4.8.4; i686; ; )
References: <CAPg+sBjSe23eADMxu-1mx0Kg2LGkN+BSNByq0PtZcMxAMh0uTg@mail.gmail.com>
	<201304302027.10247.andyparkins@gmail.com>
	<CA+8xBpfUVsX5CrJMrJRks4pa5g2Sko41cMXewYfvw_ZrPcxeQg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CA+8xBpfUVsX5CrJMrJRks4pa5g2Sko41cMXewYfvw_ZrPcxeQg@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain;
  charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <201305011505.03860.andyparkins@gmail.com>
X-Spam-Score: -1.6 (-)
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
	(andyparkins[at]gmail.com)
	-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
X-Headers-End: 1UXXej-0003GA-I9
Cc: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Fwd: Service bits for pruned 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: Wed, 01 May 2013 14:05:14 -0000

On Tuesday 30 April 2013 21:11:47 Jeff Garzik wrote:

> Hardly.  The storage format is bitcoin protocol wire format, plus a
> tiny header.  It is supported in multiple applications already, and is
> the most efficient storage format for bitcoin protocol blocks.

"Most efficient" for what purpose?  There is more that one might do than just 
duplicate bitcoind exactly.  I can well imagine storing bitcoin blocks parsed 
and separated out into database fields.

> > Wouldn't it be better to add support for more bitcoin-protocol-oriented
> > HTTP requests?  Then any client can supply the same interface, rather
> > than being forced to create blkNNNN.dat on the fly?
> 
> You don't have to create anything on the fly, if you store blocks in
> their native P2P wire protocol format.

If.  What if I'm writing a client and don't want to store them the way 
bitcoind has?

> This is a whole new client interface.  It's fun to dream this up, but
> it is far outside the scope of an efficient HTTP protocol that
> downloads blocks.

Except the alternative is no schema at all -- essentially it's just give 
access to a file on disk.  Well, that hardly needs discussion at all, and it 
hardly needs the involvement of bitcoind, apache could do it right now.

> Your proposal is closer to a full P2P rewrite over HTTP (or a proxy
> thereof).

I don't think it's a "rewrite".  The wire protocol is only a small part of 
what bitcoind does.  Adding another thread listening for HTTP requests at the 
same time as on 8333 for stadnard format.

Anyway -- I've obviously misunderstood what the idea behind a HTTP protocol 
was, and it's not like I was volunteering to do any of the work ;-)



Andy

-- 
Dr Andy Parkins
andyparkins@gmail.com