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
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
|
Received: from sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.192]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-1.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <mh.in.england@gmail.com>) id 1WY8dU-0001Rk-Q4
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Thu, 10 Apr 2014 06:38:56 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
designates 209.85.214.182 as permitted sender)
client-ip=209.85.214.182; envelope-from=mh.in.england@gmail.com;
helo=mail-ob0-f182.google.com;
Received: from mail-ob0-f182.google.com ([209.85.214.182])
by sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1WY8dT-0000Qg-Ck
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Thu, 10 Apr 2014 06:38:56 +0000
Received: by mail-ob0-f182.google.com with SMTP id uz6so3963954obc.27
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Wed, 09 Apr 2014 23:38:50 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.60.58.7 with SMTP id m7mr337104oeq.59.1397111930054; Wed, 09
Apr 2014 23:38:50 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: mh.in.england@gmail.com
Received: by 10.76.96.180 with HTTP; Wed, 9 Apr 2014 23:38:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.76.96.180 with HTTP; Wed, 9 Apr 2014 23:38:49 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAJna-Hj1U5cQ22bSXoNB-4ck_urCuS9xCk+iEHsbh+yv17MP7A@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CA+s+GJCn9U2kmyMH6w3o+m99NCfO0ws=SccvGBYJv07WVuF=eA@mail.gmail.com>
<CAADm4BCEFCiOpNzUThPPHUamP2256izU8pwD3nerLCxks0wENA@mail.gmail.com>
<CAAS2fgTx40XSLhiygnJMrSbOC=iJ2YMVLNK7-AMt3ifvAHDZUA@mail.gmail.com>
<E9BAD633-3B6A-4A2C-AA06-DB591973DF66@bitsofproof.com>
<53456B99.9010207@monetize.io>
<B2FEC170-7214-4E46-8830-153995870B62@bitsofproof.com>
<00b77560-d7ed-4ed4-a4e5-eb1f00467a06@email.android.com>
<0509477C-89F9-47C7-8820-29ACAD4A4A8E@bitsofproof.com>
<CANEZrP2Q=TG+jejEVFFh5FhjzDDkySHNSTfwtKueLcHu=pB6Kw@mail.gmail.com>
<CA+s+GJBRvDFgktTgW2sCvAVahrjxcGqfgHw0BVNPvwUupotVrg@mail.gmail.com>
<534592E2.7040800@gmail.com>
<CAAS2fgS3q6N9go-NSKdjLwgU_5bFwa8YE88DcjNYHQTwzPCn3Q@mail.gmail.com>
<5345986C.3040901@gmail.com>
<CAAS2fgQyXHNnBDKoUMd_=-=1irGJ6cFKwi59enLJvFJiWBv50A@mail.gmail.com>
<CAJna-Hj1U5cQ22bSXoNB-4ck_urCuS9xCk+iEHsbh+yv17MP7A@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2014 08:38:49 +0200
X-Google-Sender-Auth: KX53sQXS2XPYikyseMUtp_1s6-w
Message-ID: <CANEZrP2w2b28qnYd7q=fo=VL0FzVE1R15s5Entuy+fK9x+V8Kg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net>
To: slush <slush@centrum.cz>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e01538c564d6e7a04f6aa78d4
X-Spam-Score: -0.5 (/)
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
(mh.in.england[at]gmail.com)
-0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record
1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message
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: 1WY8dT-0000Qg-Ck
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Bitcoind-in-background mode for SPV
wallets
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: Thu, 10 Apr 2014 06:38:56 -0000
--089e01538c564d6e7a04f6aa78d4
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
I tend to agree with slush here - counting the IPs in addr broadcasts often
gives a number like 100,000 vs just 10,000 for actually reachable nodes (or
less). It seems like optimising the NAT tunneling code would help. Starting
by adding more diagnostic stuff to the GUI. STUN support may also help.
The main constraint with home devices is not IMHO their actual power but
rather that a lot of people no longer keep computers switched on all the
time. If you don't do that then spv with bundled Core can't help your
security because the spv wallet would always be syncing from the p2p
network for performance reasons.
On 9 Apr 2014 22:13, "slush" <slush@centrum.cz> wrote:
> I believe there're plenty bitcoind instances running, but they don't have
> configured port forwarding properly.There's uPNP support in bitcoind, but
> it works only on simple setups.
>
> Maybe there're some not yet considered way how to expose these *existing*
> instances to Internet, to strenghten the network. Maybe just self-test
> indicating the node is not reachable from outside (together with short
> howto like in some torrent clients).
>
> These days IPv6 is slowly deploying to server environments, but maybe
> there's some simple way how to bundle ipv6 tunnelling into bitcoind so any
> instance will become ipv6-reachable automatically?
>
> Maybe there're other ideas how to improve current situation without needs
> of reworking the architecture.
>
> Marek
>
>
> On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 9:33 PM, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 11:58 AM, Justus Ranvier <justusranvier@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> > Anyone reading the archives of the list will see about triple the
>> > number of people independently confirming the resource usage problem
>> > than they will see denying it, so I'm not particularly worried.
>>
>> The list has open membership, there is no particular qualification or
>> background required to post here. Optimal use of an information source
>> requires critical reading and understanding the limitations of the
>> medium. Counting comments is usually not a great way to assess
>> technical considerations on an open public forum. Doubly so because
>> those comments were not actually talking about the same thing I am
>> talking about.
>>
>> Existing implementations are inefficient in many known ways (and, no
>> doubt, some unknown ones). This list is about developing protocol and
>> implementations including improving their efficiency. When talking
>> about incentives the costs you need to consider are the costs of the
>> best realistic option. As far as I know there is no doubt from anyone
>> technically experienced that under the current network rules full
>> nodes can be operated with vastly less resources than current
>> implementations use, it's just a question of the relatively modest
>> implementation improvements.
>>
>> When you argue that Bitcoin doesn't have the right incentives (and
>> thus something??) I retort that the actual resource _requirements_ are
>> for the protocol very low. I gave specific example numbers to enable
>> correction or clarification if I've said something wrong or
>> controversial. Pointing out that existing implementations are not that
>> currently as efficient as the underlying requirements and that some
>> large number of users do not like the efficiency of existing
>> implementations doesn't tell me anything I disagree with or didn't
>> already know. Whats being discussed around here contributes to
>> prioritizing improvements over the existing implementations.
>>
>> I hope this clarifies something.
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Put Bad Developers to Shame
>> Dominate Development with Jenkins Continuous Integration
>> Continuously Automate Build, Test & Deployment
>> Start a new project now. Try Jenkins in the cloud.
>> http://p.sf.net/sfu/13600_Cloudbees
>> _______________________________________________
>> Bitcoin-development mailing list
>> Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
>>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Put Bad Developers to Shame
> Dominate Development with Jenkins Continuous Integration
> Continuously Automate Build, Test & Deployment
> Start a new project now. Try Jenkins in the cloud.
> http://p.sf.net/sfu/13600_Cloudbees
> _______________________________________________
> Bitcoin-development mailing list
> Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
>
>
--089e01538c564d6e7a04f6aa78d4
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<p dir=3D"ltr">I tend to agree with slush here - counting the IPs in addr b=
roadcasts often gives a number like 100,000 vs just 10,000 for actually rea=
chable nodes (or less). It seems like optimising the NAT tunneling code wou=
ld help. Starting by adding more diagnostic stuff to the GUI. STUN support =
may also help.</p>
<p dir=3D"ltr">The main constraint with home devices is not IMHO their actu=
al power but rather that a lot of people no longer keep computers switched =
on all the time. If you don't do that then spv with bundled Core can=
9;t help your security because the spv wallet would always be syncing from =
the p2p network for performance reasons.</p>
<div class=3D"gmail_quote">On 9 Apr 2014 22:13, "slush" <<a hr=
ef=3D"mailto:slush@centrum.cz">slush@centrum.cz</a>> wrote:<br type=3D"a=
ttribution"><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;bo=
rder-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div dir=3D"ltr">I believe there're plenty bitcoind instances running, =
but they don't have configured port forwarding properly.There's uPN=
P support in bitcoind, but it works only on simple setups.<div><br></div>
<div>
Maybe there're some not yet considered way how to expose these *existin=
g* instances to Internet, to strenghten the network. Maybe just self-test i=
ndicating the node is not reachable from outside (together with short howto=
like in some torrent clients).</div>
<div><br></div><div>These days IPv6 is slowly deploying to server environme=
nts, but maybe there's some simple way how to bundle ipv6 tunnelling in=
to bitcoind so any instance will become ipv6-reachable automatically?</div>
<div><br></div><div>Maybe there're other ideas how to improve current s=
ituation without needs of reworking the architecture.</div><div><br></div><=
div>Marek</div></div><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><br><div class=3D"gmail=
_quote">
On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 9:33 PM, Gregory Maxwell <span dir=3D"ltr"><<a hr=
ef=3D"mailto:gmaxwell@gmail.com" target=3D"_blank">gmaxwell@gmail.com</a>&g=
t;</span> wrote:<br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0=
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div>On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 11:58 AM, Justus Ranvier <<a href=3D"mailto:=
justusranvier@gmail.com" target=3D"_blank">justusranvier@gmail.com</a>> =
wrote:<br>
> Anyone reading the archives of the list will see about triple the<br>
> number of people independently confirming the resource usage problem<b=
r>
> than they will see denying it, so I'm not particularly worried.<br=
>
<br>
</div>The list has open membership, there is no particular qualification or=
<br>
background required to post here. Optimal use of an information source<br>
requires critical reading and understanding the limitations of the<br>
medium. Counting comments is usually not a great way to assess<br>
technical considerations on an open public forum. =C2=A0Doubly so because<b=
r>
those comments were not actually talking about the same thing I am<br>
talking about.<br>
<br>
Existing implementations are inefficient in many known ways (and, no<br>
doubt, some unknown ones). This list is about developing protocol and<br>
implementations including improving their efficiency. =C2=A0When talking<br=
>
about incentives the costs you need to consider are the costs of the<br>
best realistic option. =C2=A0As far as I know there is no doubt from anyone=
<br>
technically experienced that under the current network rules full<br>
nodes can be operated with vastly less resources than current<br>
implementations use, it's just a question of the relatively modest<br>
implementation improvements.<br>
<br>
When you argue that Bitcoin doesn't have the right incentives (and<br>
thus something??) I retort that the actual resource _requirements_ are<br>
for the protocol very low. I gave specific example numbers to enable<br>
correction or clarification if I've said something wrong or<br>
controversial. Pointing out that existing implementations are not that<br>
currently as efficient as the underlying requirements and that some<br>
large number of users do not like the efficiency of existing<br>
implementations doesn't tell me anything I disagree with or didn't<=
br>
already know. Whats being discussed around here contributes to<br>
prioritizing improvements over the existing implementations.<br>
<br>
I hope this clarifies something.<br>
<div><div><br>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------=
---<br>
Put Bad Developers to Shame<br>
Dominate Development with Jenkins Continuous Integration<br>
Continuously Automate Build, Test & Deployment<br>
Start a new project now. Try Jenkins in the cloud.<br>
<a href=3D"http://p.sf.net/sfu/13600_Cloudbees" target=3D"_blank">http://p.=
sf.net/sfu/13600_Cloudbees</a><br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Bitcoin-development mailing list<br>
<a href=3D"mailto:Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net" target=3D"_bla=
nk">Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net</a><br>
<a href=3D"https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development=
" target=3D"_blank">https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-de=
velopment</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div>
<br>-----------------------------------------------------------------------=
-------<br>
Put Bad Developers to Shame<br>
Dominate Development with Jenkins Continuous Integration<br>
Continuously Automate Build, Test & Deployment<br>
Start a new project now. Try Jenkins in the cloud.<br>
<a href=3D"http://p.sf.net/sfu/13600_Cloudbees" target=3D"_blank">http://p.=
sf.net/sfu/13600_Cloudbees</a><br>_________________________________________=
______<br>
Bitcoin-development mailing list<br>
<a href=3D"mailto:Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net">Bitcoin-develo=
pment@lists.sourceforge.net</a><br>
<a href=3D"https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development=
" target=3D"_blank">https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-de=
velopment</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div>
--089e01538c564d6e7a04f6aa78d4--
|
