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-3.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1Rbzb6-00063S-41 for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Sat, 17 Dec 2011 19:07:04 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com designates 74.125.82.53 as permitted sender) client-ip=74.125.82.53; envelope-from=gavinandresen@gmail.com; helo=mail-ww0-f53.google.com; Received: from mail-ww0-f53.google.com ([74.125.82.53]) by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-MD5:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1Rbzb5-0006Jf-7N for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Sat, 17 Dec 2011 19:07:04 +0000 Received: by wgbds1 with SMTP id ds1so7518843wgb.10 for ; Sat, 17 Dec 2011 11:06:57 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.216.132.231 with SMTP id o81mr2346797wei.3.1324148817036; Sat, 17 Dec 2011 11:06:57 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.223.156.77 with HTTP; Sat, 17 Dec 2011 11:06:56 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <82659F61-0449-47BB-88DC-497E0D02F8A1@ceptacle.com> Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2011 14:06:56 -0500 Message-ID: From: Gavin Andresen To: Bitcoin Dev Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Score: -1.6 (-) 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 (gavinandresen[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 X-Headers-End: 1Rbzb5-0006Jf-7N Subject: [Bitcoin-development] Protocol extensions 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: Sat, 17 Dec 2011 19:07:04 -0000 There was a discussion about using DHT's for transactions a while back on the forums: =A0https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3D723.msg7908#msg7908 If you can figure out a scheme that is secure from malicious Sybil attacks then you're smarter than I am. And additional protocol messages for lightweight clients is a good idea, as long as they don't make it a lot easier to pull off a denial-of-service attacks on a "full" node. Although I do also wonder if we'll ever run into a problem with full nodes refusing to answer requests from lightweight nodes (there might be a tragedy-of-the-commons problem lurking there). -- -- Gavin Andresen