From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.194] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-4.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1VAMRZ-0003HX-Ud for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Fri, 16 Aug 2013 16:00:05 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of petertodd.org designates 62.13.149.78 as permitted sender) client-ip=62.13.149.78; envelope-from=pete@petertodd.org; helo=outmail149078.authsmtp.net; Received: from outmail149078.authsmtp.net ([62.13.149.78]) by sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) id 1VAMRY-0001A2-Ru for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Fri, 16 Aug 2013 16:00:05 +0000 Received: from mail-c235.authsmtp.com (mail-c235.authsmtp.com [62.13.128.235]) by punt8.authsmtp.com (8.14.2/8.14.2/Kp) with ESMTP id r7GFxuak015529; Fri, 16 Aug 2013 16:59:56 +0100 (BST) Received: from petertodd.org (petertodd.org [174.129.28.249]) (authenticated bits=128) by mail.authsmtp.com (8.14.2/8.14.2/) with ESMTP id r7GFxpdM015255 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Fri, 16 Aug 2013 16:59:54 +0100 (BST) Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2013 11:59:51 -0400 From: Peter Todd To: Mike Hearn Message-ID: <20130816155951.GA16813@petertodd.org> References: <20130816140116.GB16201@petertodd.org> <20130816141536.GD16201@petertodd.org> <20130816145912.GA16533@petertodd.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="82I3+IH0IqGh5yIs" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-Server-Quench: e44af920-068c-11e3-b5c5-002590a15da7 X-AuthReport-Spam: If SPAM / abuse - report it at: http://www.authsmtp.com/abuse X-AuthRoute: OCd2Yg0TA1ZNQRgX IjsJECJaVQIpKltL GxAVKBZePFsRUQkR aQdMdwQUGUATAgsB AmUbWlJeVVR7XGc7 ag1VcwRfa1RMVxto VEFWR1pVCwQmQxt2 cFZeBmRydgBEfXs+ ZENlXngVCUB+JBB0 QE5JFWsONnphaTUc TRJdJAZJcANIexZF O1F6ACIKLwdSbGoL NQ4vNDcwO3BTJTpY RgYVKF8UXXNDMTci RhZNBn03GlYZAn11 flQaDXI7VEIQKVl0 dx1J X-Authentic-SMTP: 61633532353630.1023:706 X-AuthFastPath: 0 (Was 255) X-AuthSMTP-Origin: 174.129.28.249/587 X-AuthVirus-Status: No virus detected - but ensure you scan with your own anti-virus system. X-Spam-Score: -1.5 (-) 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 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record X-Headers-End: 1VAMRY-0001A2-Ru Cc: Bitcoin Dev Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Gavin's post-0.9 TODO list... X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2013 16:00:06 -0000 --82I3+IH0IqGh5yIs Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 05:11:35PM +0200, Mike Hearn wrote: > On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 4:59 PM, Peter Todd wrote: >=20 > > UPNP seems to work well for the reference client. What's the situation > > there on Android? > > >=20 > Not sure - it could be investigated. I think UPNP is an entirely > userspace-implementable protocol, so in theory it could be done by a > userspace library (even libminiupnp - java is not a requirement on androi= d) Do find out. > > I leave my phone plugged in and connected via wifi for most of the day; > > lots of people do that. > > >=20 > I suspect you mean "I think lots of people do that". I'm not so sure. We > could potentially run an experiment in the Android app to measure how many > users are in a position to contribute back, but just because you have wifi > doesn't mean you can reconfigure it using UPnP. That helps a lot in home > networks, but at the office it doesn't help. Also worth finding out. > I'm wary of a ton of work being put in to achieve not very much here. > Satoshi's original vision was always that millions of users were supported > by 100,000 or so nodes. I don't think that's unreasonable over the long > term. Appeal to authority. Stop bringing up Satoshi's "vision" - our understanding of crypto-currencies has improved in the 4.5 years since Bitcoin was released. Satoshi didn't even forsee pool mining, which says a lot about his economic judgement. > Besides, prioritisation isn't very hard. Nodes can just hand clients a > signed timestamp which they remember. When re-connecting, the signed > timestamp is handed back to the node and it gives priority to those with > old timestamps. No state is required on the node side. Signing and checki= ng > can be passed onto the general ECDSA thread pool that works its way throu= gh > pending signature operations, they'd be prioritised lower than checking > blocks/broadcasts. Right, so you're giving priority to peers that have been around for awhile. You've succeeded in forcing attackers to wait a bit. A) What's the definition of a peer? What stops me from pretending to be 100 peers? B) Given an attacker willing to wait, what's your plan? --=20 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org 000000000000004a52a297d9ae8ecde2ba62b681cc5a4cfbf7636032fc78e7d0 --82I3+IH0IqGh5yIs Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Digital signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAlIOTHcACgkQpEFN739thoz7gQCcCOvhEPAOUn6wAs/VPGu702s6 vFgAn3wRRl/bLKrpJOqSr/VGpyvMxFWq =38Pt -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --82I3+IH0IqGh5yIs--