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 1VALbh-0003ig-JB for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Fri, 16 Aug 2013 15:06:29 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com designates 209.85.192.174 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.192.174; envelope-from=wtogami@gmail.com; helo=mail-pd0-f174.google.com; Received: from mail-pd0-f174.google.com ([209.85.192.174]) by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1VALbg-0006qE-HC for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Fri, 16 Aug 2013 15:06:29 +0000 Received: by mail-pd0-f174.google.com with SMTP id y13so2373918pdi.33 for ; Fri, 16 Aug 2013 08:06:22 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.66.228.38 with SMTP id sf6mr3714848pac.21.1376665582608; Fri, 16 Aug 2013 08:06:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.66.72.225 with HTTP; Fri, 16 Aug 2013 08:06:22 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20130816145912.GA16533@petertodd.org> References: <20130816140116.GB16201@petertodd.org> <20130816141536.GD16201@petertodd.org> <20130816145912.GA16533@petertodd.org> Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2013 05:06:22 -1000 Message-ID: From: "Warren Togami Jr." To: Peter Todd Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b11201b06a6a504e411ef08 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 (wtogami[at]gmail.com) -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record -0.0 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/, no trust [209.85.192.174 listed in list.dnswl.org] 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: 1VALbg-0006qE-HC 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 15:06:29 -0000 --047d7b11201b06a6a504e411ef08 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 I might agree this would be helpful for the many phones plugged into power and on wifi for large portions of the day. However that doesn't really help much when phone IP addresses change often as you move onto different networks, and currently IP address is the only thing that peers can keep track of for the goodness of a peer as there is no roaming pseudo-identity cookie due to separate goal of anonymity? I haven't studied the issue if would be even possible to have both privacy protection and unique node identifiers for anti-DoS authentication at the same time. On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 4:59 AM, Peter Todd wrote: > The user interface for this stuff is very simple: "How much bandwidth > will you contribute back? If you contribute more bandwidth back, other > peers will prioritize you and your wallet will be more reliable." > > -- > 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org > 000000000000003cfc051263917373a1cab2655994b97c54a625021f52c84658 > --047d7b11201b06a6a504e411ef08 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I might agree this would be helpful for the many phones pl= ugged into power and on wifi for large portions of the day. =C2=A0However t= hat doesn't really help much when phone IP addresses change often as yo= u move onto different networks, and currently IP address is the only thing = that peers can keep track of for the goodness of a peer as there is no roam= ing pseudo-identity cookie due to separate goal of anonymity? =C2=A0I haven= 't studied the issue if would be even possible to have both privacy pro= tection and unique node identifiers for anti-DoS authentication at the same= time.

On Fri, Aug 16, 2= 013 at 4:59 AM, Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org> wrote:
<= blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px= #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
The user interface fo= r this stuff is very simple: "How much bandwidth
will you contribute back? If you contribute more bandwidth back, other
peers will prioritize you and your wallet will be more reliable."

--
'peter'[:-1]@pet= ertodd.org
000000000000003cfc051263917373a1cab2655994b97c54a625021f52c84658

--047d7b11201b06a6a504e411ef08--