From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.191] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-2.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1WY8pD-0002lx-EN for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Thu, 10 Apr 2014 06:51:03 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com designates 209.85.213.178 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.213.178; envelope-from=laanwj@gmail.com; helo=mail-ig0-f178.google.com; Received: from mail-ig0-f178.google.com ([209.85.213.178]) by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1WY8pB-0003p3-F0 for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Thu, 10 Apr 2014 06:51:03 +0000 Received: by mail-ig0-f178.google.com with SMTP id hn18so3404265igb.11 for ; Wed, 09 Apr 2014 23:50:56 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.50.122.8 with SMTP id lo8mr8824831igb.31.1397112656103; Wed, 09 Apr 2014 23:50:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.64.70.131 with HTTP; Wed, 9 Apr 2014 23:50:55 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <53456B99.9010207@monetize.io> <00b77560-d7ed-4ed4-a4e5-eb1f00467a06@email.android.com> <0509477C-89F9-47C7-8820-29ACAD4A4A8E@bitsofproof.com> <534592E2.7040800@gmail.com> <5345986C.3040901@gmail.com> Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2014 08:50:55 +0200 Message-ID: From: Wladimir To: Mike Hearn Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e015384fe94116b04f6aaa354 X-Spam-Score: -0.6 (/) 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 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider (laanwj[at]gmail.com) -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record 1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message -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: 1WY8pB-0003p3-F0 Cc: Bitcoin Dev 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: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2014 06:51:03 -0000 --089e015384fe94116b04f6aaa354 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 8:38 AM, Mike Hearn wrote: > 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. > I agree that there is a fundamental incompatibility in usage between wallets and nodes. Wallets need to be online as little as possible, nodes need to online as much as possible. However, a full node background process could also be running if the wallet is not open itself. Ffor example - by running as a system service. Bitcoin Core's own wallet is also moving to SPV, so this means a general solution is needed to get people to run a node when the wallet is not running. Maybe the node shouldn't be controlled from the wallet at all, it could be a 'node control' user interface on its own (this is what -disablewallet does currently). In this case, there is no need for packaging it with a wallet The only drawback would be that initially, people wouldn't know why or when to install this, hence my suggestion to pack it with wallets... Wladimir --089e015384fe94116b04f6aaa354 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On T= hu, Apr 10, 2014 at 8:38 AM, Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net> wrot= e:

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.

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.

I agree that there is a fundamental incompatibility in us= age between wallets and nodes. Wallets need to be online as little as possi= ble, nodes need to online as much as possible.

However, a full node = background process could also be running if the wallet is not open itself. = Ffor example - by running as a system service.
=C2=A0
Bitcoin Core's own wallet is also moving to SPV, s= o this means a general solution is needed to get people to run a node when = the wallet is not running.

Maybe the node shouldn't b= e controlled from the wallet at all, it could be a 'node control' u= ser interface on its own (this is what -disablewallet does currently). In t= his case, there is no need for packaging it with a wallet The only drawback= would be that initially, people wouldn't know why or when to install t= his, hence my suggestion to pack it with wallets...

Wladimir

--089e015384fe94116b04f6aaa354--