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
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
|
Received: from sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.194]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-1.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <d@domob.eu>) id 1YsPMX-0006wW-EW
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Wed, 13 May 2015 05:37:45 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of domob.eu
designates 92.222.9.28 as permitted sender)
client-ip=92.222.9.28; envelope-from=d@domob.eu;
helo=mail.domob.eu;
Received: from mail.domob.eu ([92.222.9.28])
by sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256)
(Exim 4.76) id 1YsPMV-0001v3-8U
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Wed, 13 May 2015 05:37:45 +0000
Received: from [0.0.0.0] (localhost [127.0.0.1])
(using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits))
(No client certificate requested)
by mail.domob.eu (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id F34A141D89
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Wed, 13 May 2015 07:20:09 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <5552DEFA.4080508@domob.eu>
Date: Wed, 13 May 2015 07:19:54 +0200
From: Daniel Kraft <d@domob.eu>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64;
rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
References: <CANJO25J1WRHtfQLVXUB2s_sjj39pTPWmixAcXNJ3t-5os8RPmQ@mail.gmail.com> <CANJO25JTtfmfsOQYOzJeksJn3CoKE3W8iLGsRko-_xd4XhB3ZA@mail.gmail.com> <CAJHLa0O5OxaX5g3u=dnCY6Lz_gK3QZgQEPNcWNVRD4JziwAmvg@mail.gmail.com> <20150512171640.GA32606@savin.petertodd.org> <CAE-z3OV3VdSoiTSfASwYHr1CjZSqio303sqGq_1Y9yaYgov2sw@mail.gmail.com>
<CAAS2fgRzGkcJbWbJmFN2-NSJGUcLdPKp0q7FjM0x7WDvHoRq=g@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAAS2fgRzGkcJbWbJmFN2-NSJGUcLdPKp0q7FjM0x7WDvHoRq=g@mail.gmail.com>
OpenPGP: id=A7330737
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512;
protocol="application/pgp-signature";
boundary="Ur907Ru7s4Cou39hq6GhVC4F7LMRx2Q53"
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 T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay
domain
-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: 1YsPMV-0001v3-8U
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Proposed additional options 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, 13 May 2015 05:37:45 -0000
This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156)
--Ur907Ru7s4Cou39hq6GhVC4F7LMRx2Q53
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi all!
On 2015-05-12 21:03, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> Summarizing from memory:
In the context of this discussion, let me also restate an idea I've
proposed in Bitcointalk for this. It is probably not perfect and could
surely be adapted (I'm interested in that), but I think it meets
most/all of the criteria stated below. It is similar to the idea with
"start points", but gives O(log height) instead of O(height) for
determining which blocks a node has.
Let me for simplicity assume that the node wants to store 50% of all
blocks. It is straight-forward to extend the scheme so that this is
configurable:
1) Create some kind of "seed" that can be compact and will be sent to
other peers to define which blocks the node has. Use it to initialise a
PRNG of some sort.
2) Divide the range of all blocks into intervals with exponentially
growing size. I. e., something like this:
1, 1, 2, 2, 4, 4, 8, 8, 16, 16, ...
With this, only O(log height) intervals are necessary to cover height
blocks.
3) Using the PRNG, *one* of the two intervals of each length is
selected. The node stores these blocks and discards the others.
(Possibly keeping the last 200 or 2,016 or whatever blocks additionally.)=
> (0) Block coverage should have locality; historical blocks are
> (almost) always needed in contiguous ranges. Having random peers
> with totally random blocks would be horrific for performance; as you'd
> have to hunt down a working peer and make a connection for each block
> with high probability.
You get contiguous block ranges (with at most O(log height) "breaks").
Also ranges of newer blocks are longer, which may be an advantage if
those blocks are needed more often.
> (1) Block storage on nodes with a fraction of the history should not
> depend on believing random peers; because listening to peers can
> easily create attacks (e.g. someone could break the network; by
> convincing nodes to become unbalanced) and not useful-- it's not like
> the blockchain is substantially different for anyone; if you're to the
> point of needing to know coverage to fill then something is wrong.
> Gaps would be handled by archive nodes, so there is no reason to
> increase vulnerability by doing anything but behaving uniformly.
With my proposal, each node determines randomly and on its own which
blocks to store. No believing anyone.
> (2) The decision to contact a node should need O(1) communications,
> not just because of the delay of chasing around just to find who has
> someone; but because that chasing process usually makes the process
> _highly_ sybil vulnerable.
Not exactly sure what you mean by that, but I think that's fulfilled.
You can (locally) compute in O(log height) from a node's seed whether or
not it has the blocks you need. This needs only communication about the
node's seed.
> (3) The expression of what blocks a node has should be compact (e.g.
> not a dense list of blocks) so it can be rumored efficiently.
See above.
> (4) Figuring out what block (ranges) a peer has given should be
> computationally efficient.
O(log height). Not O(1), but that's probably not a big issue.
> (5) The communication about what blocks a node has should be compact.
See above.
> (6) The coverage created by the network should be uniform, and should
> remain uniform as the blockchain grows; ideally it you shouldn't need
> to update your state to know what blocks a peer will store in the
> future, assuming that it doesn't change the amount of data its
> planning to use. (What Tier Nolan proposes sounds like it fails this
> point)
Coverage will be uniform if the seed is created randomly and the PRNG
has good properties. No need to update the seed if the other node's
fraction is unchanged. (Not sure if you suggest for nodes to define a
"fraction" or rather an "absolute size".)
> (7) Growth of the blockchain shouldn't cause much (or any) need to
> refetch old blocks.
No need to do that with the scheme.
What do you think about this idea? Some random thoughts from myself:
*) I need to formulate it in a more general way so that the fraction can
be arbitrary and not just 50%. This should be easy to do, and I can do
it if there's interest.
*) It is O(log height) and not O(1), but that should not be too
different for the heights that are relevant.
*) Maybe it would be better / easier to not use the PRNG at all; just
decide to *always* use the first or the second interval with a given
size. Not sure about that.
*) With the proposed scheme, the node's actual fraction of stored blocks
will vary between 1/2 and 2/3 (if I got the mathematics right, it is
still early) as the blocks come in. Not sure if that's a problem. I
can do a precise analysis of this property for an extended scheme if you
are interested in it.
Yours,
Daniel
--=20
http://www.domob.eu/
OpenPGP: 1142 850E 6DFF 65BA 63D6 88A8 B249 2AC4 A733 0737
Namecoin: id/domob -> https://nameid.org/?name=3Ddomob
--
Done: Arc-Bar-Cav-Hea-Kni-Ran-Rog-Sam-Tou-Val-Wiz
To go: Mon-Pri
--Ur907Ru7s4Cou39hq6GhVC4F7LMRx2Q53
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc"
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux)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=IwtI
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--Ur907Ru7s4Cou39hq6GhVC4F7LMRx2Q53--
|
