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
|
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 <john.dillon892@googlemail.com>) id 1UsWOy-000584-49
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Fri, 28 Jun 2013 10:59:40 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of googlemail.com
designates 74.125.83.43 as permitted sender)
client-ip=74.125.83.43;
envelope-from=john.dillon892@googlemail.com;
helo=mail-ee0-f43.google.com;
Received: from mail-ee0-f43.google.com ([74.125.83.43])
by sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1UsWOx-0007oo-32
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Fri, 28 Jun 2013 10:59:40 +0000
Received: by mail-ee0-f43.google.com with SMTP id l10so947094eei.16
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Fri, 28 Jun 2013 03:59:32 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.14.220.66 with SMTP id n42mr13132314eep.67.1372417172760;
Fri, 28 Jun 2013 03:59:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.223.12.131 with HTTP; Fri, 28 Jun 2013 03:59:32 -0700 (PDT)
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>
Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2013 10:59:32 +0000
Message-ID: <CAPaL=UWt3n6NDRB_N0sUvSH1k=RZotL+LchON75NpKVG2JKEHw@mail.gmail.com>
From: John Dillon <john.dillon892@googlemail.com>
To: Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
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
(john.dillon892[at]googlemail.com)
-0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record
0.2 FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT Envelope-from freemail username ends in
digit (john.dillon892[at]googlemail.com)
-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
0.6 URIBL_SBL Contains an URL listed in the SBL blocklist
[URIs: dashjr.org]
X-Headers-End: 1UsWOx-0007oo-32
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
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: Fri, 28 Jun 2013 10:59:40 -0000
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256
On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 6:41 PM, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell@gmail.com> 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.
Possible non-validation data that can be usefully propagated:
1) Block headers.
2) *Confirmed* transactions linked to an aformentioned blockheader.
3) Proof-of-work/sacrifice limited P2P messages, for instance to
co-ordinate trust-free-mixes or act as a communication channel for
micropayment channels.
4) With UTXO existance proof support propagate transactions
accompanied by proofs that all inputs exist. This would also allow for
implementation of Peter's low-bandwidth decentralized P2Pool proposal.
5) UTXO fraud proofs. (one day)
Strictly speaking #2 doesn't even need the protocol to be changed
actually as it can be handled entirely within the existing INV/getdata
mechanism. Sure someone could throw away a lot of hashing power and
get an invalid block propagated, but really so what? SPV nodes should
always take confirmations with a grain of salt anyway.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJRzWx8AAoJEEWCsU4mNhiPlTkIAJKzFsT65o6LoU70hbaBsu3g
aBdjYZSCnJ9+qWI2tqqUBedq2etbt71hAfWNnTXvFus+0iVB1HWJClW155319vuH
Xi1m9G3O0NzX1d+cssMPxFBHsl4Rz6XYICrYyVEe2X554Zawdg6I53+1INHRfsBT
1vmq5Bxgopt0Tk9Vf8HNdRt/IXZJaPYm1PEzJHFppuOvl5+Fpypy3t/QXdsP8puP
LnRdL7Bxfu3BSWrSRZo7l5Fpww3Y/vdNYCL4jDD/ME+36wi4CUM3psL8lsk81lB4
3t/ytF4y/adT/dEEtMj7BGWS0TIMMH0NyeCjqBdStiQsVfoowLCVfpuDzouZ6yY=
=TI1m
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
|
