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-3.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1VBFbA-0001ZV-FB for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Mon, 19 Aug 2013 02:53:40 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of googlemail.com designates 209.85.215.170 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.215.170; envelope-from=john.dillon892@googlemail.com; helo=mail-ea0-f170.google.com; Received: from mail-ea0-f170.google.com ([209.85.215.170]) by sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1VBFb9-0002n5-CI for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Mon, 19 Aug 2013 02:53:40 +0000 Received: by mail-ea0-f170.google.com with SMTP id h14so2045297eak.1 for ; Sun, 18 Aug 2013 19:53:33 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.14.89.72 with SMTP id b48mr8984320eef.43.1376880813011; Sun, 18 Aug 2013 19:53:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.223.41.4 with HTTP; Sun, 18 Aug 2013 19:53:32 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <20130819001357.GA4281@savin> Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2013 02:53:32 +0000 Message-ID: From: John Dillon To: Gavin Andresen Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 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 (john.dillon892[at]googlemail.com) -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record 0.2 FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT Envelope-from freemail username ends in digit (john.dillon892[at]googlemail.com) -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: 1VBFb9-0002n5-CI Cc: Bitcoin Dev Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Bloom io attack effectiveness 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: Mon, 19 Aug 2013 02:53:40 -0000 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 12:59 AM, Gavin Andresen wrote: > Peter said: > "In any case given that SPV peers don't contribute back to the network > they should obviously be heavily deprioritized and served only with > whatever resources a node has spare." > > This seems very much like a "cut off your nose to spite your face" solution. > > SPV peers are INCREDIBLY IMPORTANT to the growth of Bitcoin; much more > important than nodes that have the bandwidth and disk I/O capability of > being a full node. Bitcoin will be just fine if there are never more than > 10,000 big, beefy, full nodes forming the backbone of the network, but will > be NOTHING if we don't support tens of millions of lightweight SPV devices. > > Ok, that's an exaggeration, Bitcoin would be just fine in an Electrum model > where tens of millions of lightweight devices rely 100% on a full node to > operate. But I would prefer the more decentralized, less-trust-required SPV > model. So tell us how is your "vision" of 10,000 big beefy full nodes with SPV peers any different from the Electrum model? These days Electrum clients have block headers and verify that transactions have merkle paths to the block headers. The only difference I see is that SPV uses bloom filtering and Electrum can query by transaction. But Mike wants to add querying by transaction to full nodes anyway, and one of the purported advantages of this UTXO proof stuff is that you can query servers for UTXO's by address, so I see no difference at all. A patch to do bloom filtering on Electrum would be amusing to me. Here you have Peter talking about clever ways to actually get decentralization by having SPV peers donate back to the network with spare bandwidth, like relaying blocks, not to mention his partial UTXO set ideas, and you completely ignore that. But I guess that would raise ugly questions when people realize they can't now contribute back to Bitcoin, because the blocksize is a gigabyte of microtransactions... It may also raise ugly questions with regulators that may find the idea of "full node == data chokepoint == regulatory chokepoint" an attractive notion. Why are there not any competent people other than Peter who really have the guts to bring up these proposals? I've little luck getting proof-of-concepts built for money anyway. Maybe we just have a darth of smart competent people in this space. You do a good job of signaling your priorities Gavin. The payment protocol includes no notion that you may want to pay anyone but a SSL certified merchant. Yes I know the crypto can be upgraded, but it says volumes that you pushed for that first, without even the slightest token effort to allow individuals to participate in any way. Sad given you have made things *less* secure because there is no safe way to get money *into* my wallet with the payment protocol, but could have been. Tell me, when my decentralization pull-req is voted on, which way are you planning on voting? -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJSEYg/AAoJEEWCsU4mNhiPQBIH/A2cef0NDzu72CY0+N1HdPO+ fdixwncAg1ok6YdJj5WALjHbkhJ+QRVEZoRr6rHPxxxTywI+HiPN1oaopIrq3StP bNpvouaWXLyw6xHMrMYefVOluHNZg3lu1akLdGuYA7rDHLwP/RhlF1FFzXSxKFsp ANcw4WW7U5r5nfBHYc/a9xo8S6THI7Nv2NDW6WaRQO4X9sbSKSdwanoe75CLsRzE E2cPNvwG4WA/MUgkl3Ao6dMsEPPa8dJK98LaS4BE/m9iFWQiV8t35/FQ0GAFQoJo PQUs8aAWiI0caAxI0vddxKQ+YlwPw2m1QH6h19wUO7+KLKOtxMFmWoDu/OLdTRM= =IfkA -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----