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
|
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 <grarpamp@gmail.com>) id 1RvDFw-00017B-KK
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Wed, 08 Feb 2012 19:32:40 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
designates 74.125.82.175 as permitted sender)
client-ip=74.125.82.175; envelope-from=grarpamp@gmail.com;
helo=mail-we0-f175.google.com;
Received: from mail-we0-f175.google.com ([74.125.82.175])
by sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1RvDFv-0007zU-V8
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Wed, 08 Feb 2012 19:32:40 +0000
Received: by werc1 with SMTP id c1so888623wer.34
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Wed, 08 Feb 2012 11:32:33 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.216.52.198 with SMTP id e48mr7318682wec.18.1328729553812; Wed,
08 Feb 2012 11:32:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.180.103.227 with HTTP; Wed, 8 Feb 2012 11:32:33 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CA+s+GJCh4n2BAj=sFfUnUBgcJuJ9EPe=5qYftZ8SogDX_EQATg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAD2Ti2_vGc+SJX_+uTz4ZVk1r5DhCOm6n3yKW16o9QaPKTQkHQ@mail.gmail.com>
<CA+s+GJCh4n2BAj=sFfUnUBgcJuJ9EPe=5qYftZ8SogDX_EQATg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2012 14:32:33 -0500
Message-ID: <CAD2Ti2-JtfF09e_4b3HKn4a+GYKj72tgR2aQ-WpiKXZAwA9uvg@mail.gmail.com>
From: grarpamp <grarpamp@gmail.com>
To: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
X-Spam-Score: -0.9 (/)
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
(grarpamp[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
0.7 AWL AWL: From: address is in the auto white-list
X-Headers-End: 1RvDFv-0007zU-V8
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Scaling at the end user level
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, 08 Feb 2012 19:32:40 -0000
>> Have any groups published proposals for distributing
>> a weekly precomputed bootstrap chain?
>> rsync? db_dump > git > db_load?
>> There is also 50% or more compression available in the index
>> and chain.
> I have proposed packaging part of the block chain (doesn't even have to be
> weekly, just until the last checkpoint), but people fear it runs contrary to
> the distributed approach of Bitcoin.
Git repos are backed by strong hashes. Each commit could be a single
block dump, perhaps into a file hierarchy. Trusted entities, pools, etc
could sign at a checkpoint/height. Blockchain tools
would need made that can take the blk* and export single blocks and
process/export up to a certain block and quit. Everyone would do a
comparison and sign a commit hash. Everyone else git pulls. Having
the block toolset is a key prequisite to any sort of distribution. They don't
exist now :( Maybe the two bitcoin compatible library projects out there
will implement them :) Torrents are also strongly hashed and could be
signed as well.
Making the blockchain tools would be the most important thing to start.
> BTW: On such an old computer you should probably use one of the thin
> clients.
If that means not validating the chain, then it's as above. I'm not sure if it's
right to not care about the history if only making new transactions with a new
key post install time and then only validating new transactions as they come
in. Will have a look.
|
