public inbox for bitcoindev@googlegroups.com
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Jean-Paul Kogelman <jeanpaulkogelman@me.com>
To: Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@bitpay.com>
Cc: Bitcoin Development <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Why are we bleeding nodes?
Date: Tue, 08 Apr 2014 00:24:37 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <AC42883D-9D3A-49D3-9ADA-7D24AB833352@me.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAJHLa0MOB2=1JNfXCb-DY24ssTi7hVFi6H7JDaeVp5oOUUMy=A@mail.gmail.com>

Isn't that just conceding that p2p protocol A is better than p2p protocol B?

Can't Bitcoin Core's block fetching be improved to get similar performance as a torrent + import?

Currently it's hard to go wide on data fetching because headers first is still pretty 'beefy'. The headers can be compressed, which would get you about 50% savings.

Also, maybe adding a layer that groups block headers into a single hash (say, 2016 headers), and then being able to fetch those (possibly compressed) header 'blocks' from multiple sources in parallel. And fanning out block fetches even further, favoring fast nodes.

Just thinking out loud.

jp

> On Apr 7, 2014, at 8:44 PM, Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@bitpay.com> wrote:
> 
> Being Mr. Torrent, I've held open the "80% serious" suggestion to
> simply refuse to serve blocks older than X (3 months?).
> 
> That forces download by other means (presumably torrent).
> 
> I do not feel it is productive for any nodes on the network to waste
> time/bandwidth/etc. serving static, ancient data.  There remain, of
> course, issues of older nodes and "getting the word out" that prevents
> this switch from being flipped on tomorrow.
> 
> 
> 
>> On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 2:49 PM, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 11:35 AM, Tamas Blummer <tamas@bitsofproof.com> wrote:
>>> BTW, did we already agree on the service bits for an archive node?
>> 
>> I'm still very concerned that a binary archive bit will cause extreme
>> load hot-spotting and the kind of binary "Use lots of resources YES or
>> NO" I think we're currently suffering some from, but at that point
>> enshrined in the protocol.
>> 
>> It would be much better to extend the addr messages so that nodes can
>> indicate a range or two of blocks that they're serving, so that all
>> nodes can contribute fractionally according to their means. E.g. if
>> you want to offer up 8 GB of distributed storage and contribute to the
>> availability of the blockchain,  without having to swollow the whole
>> 20, 30, 40 ... gigabyte pill.
>> 
>> Already we need that kind of distributed storage for the most recent
>> blocks to prevent extreme bandwidth load on archives, so extending it
>> to arbitrary ranges is only more complicated because there is
>> currently no room to signal it.
>> 
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 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
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Jeff Garzik
> Bitcoin core developer and open source evangelist
> BitPay, Inc.      https://bitpay.com/
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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



  reply	other threads:[~2014-04-08  7:24 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 70+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2014-04-07 11:34 [Bitcoin-development] Why are we bleeding nodes? Mike Hearn
2014-04-07 12:17 ` Ricardo Filipe
2014-04-07 13:43   ` Andreas Schildbach
2014-04-07 14:05     ` Mike Hearn
2014-04-07 14:15       ` Eric Martindale
2014-04-07 14:23         ` Mike Hearn
2014-04-07 19:46         ` Troy Benjegerdes
2014-04-08  3:13         ` kjj
2014-04-08  7:50           ` Mike Hearn
2014-04-09 10:38         ` Wendell
2014-04-09 11:15           ` Wladimir
2014-04-07 14:45       ` Tom Harding
2014-04-07 12:19 ` Jameson Lopp
2014-04-07 12:26   ` Pieter Wuille
2014-04-07 12:34     ` Mike Hearn
2014-04-07 12:34     ` Jameson Lopp
2014-05-20 18:38     ` Isidor Zeuner
2014-04-07 13:50 ` Gregory Maxwell
2014-04-07 13:53   ` Gregory Maxwell
2014-04-07 13:58     ` Jameson Lopp
2014-04-07 14:04       ` Gregory Maxwell
2014-04-08 11:28   ` Jesus Cea
2014-04-07 15:45 ` Justus Ranvier
2014-04-07 15:53   ` Gregory Maxwell
2014-04-07 16:02     ` Jameson Lopp
2014-04-07 16:27     ` Mark Friedenbach
2014-04-07 16:57       ` Gregory Maxwell
2014-04-07 17:01         ` Mark Friedenbach
2014-04-07 17:16           ` Gregory Maxwell
2014-04-07 17:35             ` Brent Shambaugh
2014-04-07 17:40               ` Mike Hearn
2014-04-07 17:44                 ` Gregory Maxwell
2014-04-07 17:45                 ` Tamas Blummer
2014-04-07 17:50                 ` Justus Ranvier
2014-04-07 18:30                   ` Arne Brutschy
2014-04-07 17:56                 ` Brent Shambaugh
2014-04-07 17:46             ` Justus Ranvier
2014-04-07 17:39     ` Chris Williams
2014-04-07 18:23       ` Mike Hearn
2014-04-07 18:35         ` Tamas Blummer
2014-04-07 18:49           ` Gregory Maxwell
2014-04-07 19:00             ` Tamas Blummer
2014-04-07 18:48               ` Mark Friedenbach
2014-04-07 19:02               ` Gregory Maxwell
2014-04-07 19:05                 ` Tamas Blummer
2014-04-07 19:03               ` Gregory Maxwell
2014-04-07 19:13                 ` Tier Nolan
2014-04-07 19:20                 ` Tamas Blummer
2014-04-07 19:13                   ` Mark Friedenbach
2014-04-07 19:36                     ` Tamas Blummer
2014-04-07 21:46                     ` Ricardo Filipe
2014-04-07 19:30                   ` Paul Lyon
2014-04-07 19:50                     ` Tamas Blummer
2014-04-07 21:48                       ` Tier Nolan
2014-04-07 21:56                         ` Gregory Maxwell
2014-04-08  3:44             ` Jeff Garzik
2014-04-08  7:24               ` Jean-Paul Kogelman [this message]
2014-04-08  7:59               ` Tamas Blummer
2014-04-08 17:18       ` Andrew LeCody
2014-04-07 17:07 ` Drak
2014-05-20  8:15   ` bitcoingrant
2014-05-20  8:42     ` Mike Hearn
2014-05-20 14:37     ` Eugen Leitl
2014-05-20 14:52       ` Gmail
2014-05-20 18:46         ` Andy Alness
2014-05-20 19:17           ` Jeff Garzik
2014-05-20 20:09             ` Andy Alness
2014-05-20 20:22               ` Jeff Garzik
2014-04-07 21:55 Paul Lyon
2014-04-07 22:14 ` Tier Nolan

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=AC42883D-9D3A-49D3-9ADA-7D24AB833352@me.com \
    --to=jeanpaulkogelman@me.com \
    --cc=bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net \
    --cc=jgarzik@bitpay.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox