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-4.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1UYHVJ-0006Ok-7D for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Fri, 03 May 2013 15:02:33 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com designates 209.85.219.42 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.219.42; envelope-from=mh.in.england@gmail.com; helo=mail-oa0-f42.google.com; Received: from mail-oa0-f42.google.com ([209.85.219.42]) by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1UYHVI-0004pB-Gg for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Fri, 03 May 2013 15:02:33 +0000 Received: by mail-oa0-f42.google.com with SMTP id i10so467177oag.29 for ; Fri, 03 May 2013 08:02:27 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.60.62.70 with SMTP id w6mr3201514oer.38.1367593347148; Fri, 03 May 2013 08:02:27 -0700 (PDT) Sender: mh.in.england@gmail.com Received: by 10.76.167.169 with HTTP; Fri, 3 May 2013 08:02:26 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20130503141801.GA1301@petertodd.org> References: <20130503141801.GA1301@petertodd.org> Date: Fri, 3 May 2013 17:02:26 +0200 X-Google-Sender-Auth: OKn5dZdDuR9URhrzzIjn32i-d50 Message-ID: From: Mike Hearn To: Peter Todd Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e01294f30a7732704dbd1a32f X-Spam-Score: -0.5 (/) 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 1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message 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: 1UYHVI-0004pB-Gg Cc: Bitcoin Dev Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Service bits for pruned nodes 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, 03 May 2013 15:02:33 -0000 --089e01294f30a7732704dbd1a32f Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 > If you're going to take a step like that, the > should be rounded off, perhaps to some number of bits, or you'll allow > DNS caching to be defeated. > Don't the seeds already set small times? I'm not sure we want these responses to be cacheable, otherwise there's a risk of a wall of traffic suddenly showing up at one set of nodes if a large ISP caches a response. (yes yes, I know, SPV node should be remembering addr broadcasts and such). --089e01294f30a7732704dbd1a32f Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

=
If you're going to take a step like that= , the <current-chain-height>
should be rounded off, perhaps to some number of bits, or you'll allow<= br> DNS caching to be defeated.

Don&#= 39;t the seeds already set small times? I'm not sure we want these resp= onses to be cacheable, otherwise there's a risk of a wall of traffic su= ddenly showing up at one set of nodes if a large ISP caches a response. (ye= s yes, I know, SPV node should be remembering addr broadcasts and such).

--089e01294f30a7732704dbd1a32f--