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 <mh.in.england@gmail.com>) id 1SfoLk-0000ZP-H6
	for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
	Sat, 16 Jun 2012 08:27:16 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
	designates 209.85.212.169 as permitted sender)
	client-ip=209.85.212.169; envelope-from=mh.in.england@gmail.com;
	helo=mail-wi0-f169.google.com; 
Received: from mail-wi0-f169.google.com ([209.85.212.169])
	by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
	(Exim 4.76) id 1SfoLj-0001Tv-Ou
	for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
	Sat, 16 Jun 2012 08:27:16 +0000
Received: by wibhn14 with SMTP id hn14so202263wib.4
	for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
	Sat, 16 Jun 2012 01:27:09 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.180.101.103 with SMTP id ff7mr10125514wib.6.1339835229607;
	Sat, 16 Jun 2012 01:27:09 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: mh.in.england@gmail.com
Received: by 10.216.254.232 with HTTP; Sat, 16 Jun 2012 01:27:09 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <1339771184.31489.53.camel@bmthinkpad>
References: <CA+8xBpecVQcTTbPxUm_3_GWC99dEd4=-VFWb+QT6jUy4rg8U4w@mail.gmail.com>
	<CANEZrP0kNZDByHpK2=UjP+ag0X1KmqHxnJdm=e_pWMitP4QvvA@mail.gmail.com>
	<1339766346.31489.49.camel@bmthinkpad>
	<CANEZrP3jj2ymQPH50g2PvzZhRzTnUnCLUjvBYj8ndBCJsnGJ-w@mail.gmail.com>
	<1339771184.31489.53.camel@bmthinkpad>
Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2012 10:27:09 +0200
X-Google-Sender-Auth: LAaZGCTHqd8DO3gN4jbZ4unWbxY
Message-ID: <CANEZrP0hTRbE9+VEa3eCzJkbHqa3u8tpdw7eDLBQQR6DBf2adw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net>
To: Matt Corallo <bitcoin-list@bluematt.me>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
X-Spam-Score: -1.4 (-)
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
	(mh.in.england[at]gmail.com)
	-0.0 SPF_PASS               SPF: sender matches SPF record
	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
	0.1 AWL AWL: From: address is in the auto white-list
X-Headers-End: 1SfoLj-0001Tv-Ou
Cc: Bitcoin Development <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] New P2P commands for diagnostics,
	SPV clients
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: <bitcoin-development.lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
	<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_name=bitcoin-development>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
	<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2012 08:27:16 -0000

> I'd much rather have an overloaded node respond with 50% fp rate filters
> as an option if there aren't many full nodes available than simply
> disconnect SPV clients.

I don't think the bloom filter settings have any impact on server-side
load ... a node still has to check every transaction against the
filter regardless of how that filter is configured, which means the
same amount of disk io and processing.

How can you reduce load on a peer by negotiating different filter settings?