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
|
Received: from sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.192]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-3.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <pieter.wuille@gmail.com>) id 1WX8dS-0005pC-Vw
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Mon, 07 Apr 2014 12:26:47 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
designates 209.85.213.179 as permitted sender)
client-ip=209.85.213.179; envelope-from=pieter.wuille@gmail.com;
helo=mail-ig0-f179.google.com;
Received: from mail-ig0-f179.google.com ([209.85.213.179])
by sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1WX8dS-0000iB-18
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Mon, 07 Apr 2014 12:26:46 +0000
Received: by mail-ig0-f179.google.com with SMTP id hl10so3514882igb.6
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Mon, 07 Apr 2014 05:26:40 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.43.156.18 with SMTP id lk18mr860556icc.77.1396873600695;
Mon, 07 Apr 2014 05:26:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.50.141.135 with HTTP; Mon, 7 Apr 2014 05:26:40 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <534297B8.4060506@gmail.com>
References: <CANEZrP2rgiQHpekEpFviJ22QsiV+s-F2pqosaZOA5WrRtJx5pg@mail.gmail.com>
<534297B8.4060506@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2014 14:26:40 +0200
Message-ID: <CAPg+sBhL+Lr_noM7hVB4w-tvX0LLK2bKbQTzAw=4WswyxNGboQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Pieter Wuille <pieter.wuille@gmail.com>
To: Jameson Lopp <jameson.lopp@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
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
(pieter.wuille[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: 1WX8dS-0000iB-18
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <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: Mon, 07 Apr 2014 12:26:47 -0000
On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 2:19 PM, Jameson Lopp <jameson.lopp@gmail.com> wrote=
:
> I'm glad to see that I'm not the only one concerned about the consistent =
dropping of nodes. Though I think that the fundamental question should be: =
how many nodes do we really need? Obviously more is better, but it's diffic=
ult to say how concerned we should be without more information. I posted my=
thoughts last month: http://coinchomp.com/2014/03/19/bitcoin-nodes-many-en=
ough/
In my opinion, the number of full nodes doesn't matter (as long as
it's enough to satisfy demand by other nodes).
What matters is how hard it is to run one. If someone is interesting
in verifying that nobody is cheating on the network, can they, and can
they without significant investment? Whether they actually will
depends also no how interesting the currency and its digital transfers
are.
> On 04/07/2014 07:34 AM, Mike Hearn wrote:
>> At the start of February we had 10,000 bitcoin nodes. Now we have 8,500 =
and
>> still falling:
>>
>> http://getaddr.bitnodes.io/dashboard/chart/?days=3D60
My own network crawler (which feeds my DNS seeder) hasn't seen any
significant drop that I remember, but I don't have actual logs. It's
seeing around 6000 "well reachable nodes" currently, which is the
highest number I've ever seen (though it's been around 6000 for quite
a while now).
--=20
Pieter
|
