From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.193] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-2.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1RcMXz-0005AK-E9 for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Sun, 18 Dec 2011 19:37:23 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com designates 74.125.82.53 as permitted sender) client-ip=74.125.82.53; envelope-from=timon.elviejo@gmail.com; helo=mail-ww0-f53.google.com; Received: from mail-ww0-f53.google.com ([74.125.82.53]) by sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-MD5:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1RcMXy-00066a-Kj for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Sun, 18 Dec 2011 19:37:23 +0000 Received: by wgbds1 with SMTP id ds1so8603830wgb.10 for ; Sun, 18 Dec 2011 11:37:16 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.216.131.90 with SMTP id l68mr3297660wei.36.1324237036469; Sun, 18 Dec 2011 11:37:16 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.223.81.79 with HTTP; Sun, 18 Dec 2011 11:37:16 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <1324228179.7053.140661013136581@webmail.messagingengine.com> References: <82659F61-0449-47BB-88DC-497E0D02F8A1@ceptacle.com> <1324158558.26106.140661012932641@webmail.messagingengine.com> <4EED416E.3010902@parhelic.com> <1324228179.7053.140661013136581@webmail.messagingengine.com> Date: Sun, 18 Dec 2011 20:37:16 +0100 Message-ID: From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jorge_Tim=F3n?= Cc: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Spam-Score: -0.7 (/) 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 (timon.elviejo[at]gmail.com) -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record 1.2 MISSING_HEADERS Missing To: header -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 -0.3 AWL AWL: From: address is in the auto white-list X-Headers-End: 1RcMXy-00066a-Kj Subject: Re: [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: Sun, 18 Dec 2011 19:37:23 -0000 2011/12/17, theymos : > My preferred solution for handling scalability in the future is to > have lightweight clients download only headers and Merkle trees (which > are both small and easy to distribute), and then require senders to > contact recipients directly in order to transmit their transactions. > Then lightweight clients never need full blocks to build their > balances, and full nodes don't have to handle expensive queries from > lightweight clients. This idea is really interesting. Is there any drawback I don't see?