From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.194]
	helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
	by sfs-ml-2.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
	(envelope-from <mh.in.england@gmail.com>) id 1SfWUp-00079j-8Q
	for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
	Fri, 15 Jun 2012 13:23:27 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
	designates 74.125.82.175 as permitted sender)
	client-ip=74.125.82.175; envelope-from=mh.in.england@gmail.com;
	helo=mail-we0-f175.google.com; 
Received: from mail-we0-f175.google.com ([74.125.82.175])
	by sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
	(Exim 4.76) id 1SfWUj-0002BD-Rm
	for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
	Fri, 15 Jun 2012 13:23:27 +0000
Received: by werg55 with SMTP id g55so2329770wer.34
	for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
	Fri, 15 Jun 2012 06:23:15 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.216.226.147 with SMTP id b19mr3354194weq.210.1339766591988;
	Fri, 15 Jun 2012 06:23:11 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: mh.in.england@gmail.com
Received: by 10.216.254.232 with HTTP; Fri, 15 Jun 2012 06:23:11 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <1339766346.31489.49.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>
Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2012 15:23:11 +0200
X-Google-Sender-Auth: TAM7kFBxX4Io2Yy2pLaq0AwoPb4
Message-ID: <CANEZrP3jj2ymQPH50g2PvzZhRzTnUnCLUjvBYj8ndBCJsnGJ-w@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: -1.5 (-)
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
	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: 1SfWUj-0002BD-Rm
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: Fri, 15 Jun 2012 13:23:27 -0000

> > Why not combine these two?
>
> I believe its because it allows the node which will have to use the
> bloom filter to scan transactions to chose how much effort it wants to
> put into each transaction on behalf of the SPV client.

If that's the case then the negotiation protocol needs to be specified
too. It seems heavy though. If a node is getting overloaded it could
just disconnect intensive peers or refuse new connections.