From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 54D9B904 for ; Mon, 27 Mar 2017 17:09:21 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-wr0-f179.google.com (mail-wr0-f179.google.com [209.85.128.179]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 07A9D1F0 for ; Mon, 27 Mar 2017 17:09:19 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-wr0-f179.google.com with SMTP id u1so66435842wra.2 for ; Mon, 27 Mar 2017 10:09:19 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version :in-reply-to; bh=vpay0eJ3A3nzyN3VGj2iXXq26tkYm2FI6fvGMpqh2Zw=; b=NEt5x8X2ADS0SjmpRR4iLvm872BK6zaYE8qFHIffqmSjBgX9euOcHm5zZodv2NIell tvTxJYTZy0norZH/pW1qeSyt5xGc6+EMMIC3QHKcu+N709ePrKXw19SGghitcxXBrMzl ROjNNCnPeZZ0jabYadtJeT6clQl5yQ8/b4Jd0TFCDcBe6EBvOFuk0ssx2ZfcOHCd+Ric R37jXoE0PsZdct/wAHk5Lq+defm2DbAmpJJ8L4KzQMBfVWk4OhmLesT0to8UgjbGqb9p Mtx92CgC171uEt8zICrw9X5qbzX34RunyamVrkp7+dvcV8UDFZEao5Ti4MYlidDo2ExJ P1Ew== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to; bh=vpay0eJ3A3nzyN3VGj2iXXq26tkYm2FI6fvGMpqh2Zw=; b=T7LoPpXRAWquvPRYhMqZ1K4PuuHXyGixfc23dFfOsajFMzOuX0dgXvNWAgoKNjav3O 0xFtBUD4NaVvAzKtJ7Y5FY8IMRTH6pWgYfXHABL8/9HUwULXTRSxwcTCqG89W+tRW5QH lfkY2ZDyQBp4B85vaiutumq577TzE0qkpihRddT9chp3b63SStYx0qsYoCOfEmw8rMk5 Ne4GPlaO99wnUc3aYOR3F9R1Ftx8kkBNdAtjuizbSTUQPsUSVidBTYC4EEF7hCgTYaZs Nv6DMw/iLDsHn4UcorM2O5OijAuNYPRwGfKwc4g5TXkY61WABmhnLFb6RqpGQ6TmAUSz SCng== X-Gm-Message-State: AFeK/H36EiTZoy4CaTvhuWavZ238CL4GROGFRAY/acCU+SjQVYY/DVSIal5n3Lt76bfkyA== X-Received: by 10.223.134.173 with SMTP id 42mr8378863wrx.130.1490634558665; Mon, 27 Mar 2017 10:09:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.10] (ANice-654-1-52-124.w83-201.abo.wanadoo.fr. [83.201.223.124]) by smtp.googlemail.com with ESMTPSA id j26sm1424499wrb.69.2017.03.27.10.09.17 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 27 Mar 2017 10:09:18 -0700 (PDT) To: praxeology_guy , Bitcoin Protocol Discussion References: From: Aymeric Vitte Message-ID: Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2017 19:09:20 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.8.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------8D47D1E968E66CB2191212FB" X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.0 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, FREEMAIL_FROM, HTML_MESSAGE, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Bandwidth limits and LN w/ node relay network topography X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2017 17:09:21 -0000 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------8D47D1E968E66CB2191212FB Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit What you are describing is described here too: https://gist.github.com/Ayms/aab6f8e08fef0792ab3448f542a826bf (again, at very draft and somewhere misleading state) I don't think that the rewards should depend on subsequent chains built on top of the main one, it should be handled by the main chain I am not sure to really get your last sentence and why history should have an importance based on some ways for historical valid nodes to prove they are still, supposedly defeating the nodes trying to split, who would inherently not behave correctly and therefore be banned by the other nodes Again, we are not far from switching from decentralized to centralized, and I must again mention the Tor network, which indeed selects nodes according to their advertised bandwidth (ie does not select you if you advertise a very low one, which my nodes are doing because their work is not to relay the tor traffic), but not only since the network itself makes some calculations (and then does not select the nodes that are lying, but this does not work the other way around), unlike this system the decentralized system should self regulate without being able to fingerprint the valid nodes over time Le 27/03/2017 à 00:11, praxeology_guy via bitcoin-dev a écrit : > Bandwidth limits: > Would be nice to specify global and per node up/down bandwidth limits. > Communicate limits to peers. > Monitor actual bandwidth with peers. > Adjust connections accordingly to attain bandwidth goals/limits. > > With Lightning Network: > Prepay for bandwidth/data. Continue paying nodes who continue to send > new useful data. Potentially pay different amounts for different > kinds of data. > Request refunds when a node sends useless/duplicate/invalid/spam > data. Discontinue connection w/ nodes that don't refund. Hence LN > payment channel network topography becomes somewhat correlated w/ > bitcoin node relay network topography. > > Should help nodes get better data faster, improve spam/DDoS > resiliance. Incentivizes relay of unconfirmed txs and new blocks, > when currently there is only a utilitarian marginal self benefit via > helping everyone in general. > > Maybe relay advertisements of available bandwidth and prices, etc. > > To identify network splits: > Nodes could find hash of "nonce + pub key + tip blockhash" beating a > difficulty threshold. Sign, broadcast. Prove their existence and > connectedness. History can be maintained and monitored for > disruption. Could be made part of the messages that advertise > available network bandwidth. > > Cheers, > Praxeology Guy > > > _______________________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev -- Zcash wallets made simple: https://github.com/Ayms/zcash-wallets Bitcoin wallets made simple: https://github.com/Ayms/bitcoin-wallets Get the torrent dynamic blocklist: http://peersm.com/getblocklist Check the 10 M passwords list: http://peersm.com/findmyass Anti-spies and private torrents, dynamic blocklist: http://torrent-live.org Peersm : http://www.peersm.com torrent-live: https://github.com/Ayms/torrent-live node-Tor : https://www.github.com/Ayms/node-Tor GitHub : https://www.github.com/Ayms --------------8D47D1E968E66CB2191212FB Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

What you are describing is described here too: https://gist.github.com/Ayms/aab6f8e08fef0792ab3448f542a826bf (again, at very draft and somewhere misleading state)

I don't think that the rewards should depend on subsequent chains built on top of the main one, it should be handled by the main chain

I am not sure to really get your last sentence and why history should have an importance based on some ways for historical valid nodes to prove they are still, supposedly defeating the nodes trying to split, who would inherently not behave correctly and therefore be banned by the other nodes

Again, we are not far from switching from decentralized to centralized, and I must again mention the Tor network, which indeed selects nodes according to their advertised bandwidth (ie does not select you if you advertise a very low one, which my nodes are doing because their work is not to relay the tor traffic), but not only since the network itself makes some calculations (and then does not select the nodes that are lying, but this does not work the other way around), unlike this system the decentralized system should self regulate without being able to fingerprint the valid nodes over time


Le 27/03/2017 à 00:11, praxeology_guy via bitcoin-dev a écrit :
Bandwidth limits:
Would be nice to specify global and per node up/down bandwidth limits.
Communicate limits to peers.
Monitor actual bandwidth with peers.
Adjust connections accordingly to attain bandwidth goals/limits.

With Lightning Network:
Prepay for bandwidth/data.  Continue paying nodes who continue to send new useful data.  Potentially pay different amounts for different kinds of data.
Request refunds when a node sends useless/duplicate/invalid/spam data.  Discontinue connection w/ nodes that don't refund.  Hence LN payment channel network topography becomes somewhat correlated w/ bitcoin node relay network topography.

Should help nodes get better data faster, improve spam/DDoS resiliance.  Incentivizes relay of unconfirmed txs and new blocks, when currently there is only a utilitarian marginal self benefit via helping everyone in general.

Maybe relay advertisements of available bandwidth and prices, etc.

To identify network splits:
Nodes could find hash of "nonce + pub key + tip blockhash" beating a difficulty threshold.  Sign, broadcast.  Prove their existence and connectedness.  History can be maintained and monitored for disruption.  Could be made part of the messages that advertise available network bandwidth.

Cheers,
Praxeology Guy


_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev


-- 
Zcash wallets made simple: https://github.com/Ayms/zcash-wallets
Bitcoin wallets made simple: https://github.com/Ayms/bitcoin-wallets
Get the torrent dynamic blocklist: http://peersm.com/getblocklist
Check the 10 M passwords list: http://peersm.com/findmyass
Anti-spies and private torrents, dynamic blocklist: http://torrent-live.org
Peersm : http://www.peersm.com
torrent-live: https://github.com/Ayms/torrent-live
node-Tor : https://www.github.com/Ayms/node-Tor
GitHub : https://www.github.com/Ayms
--------------8D47D1E968E66CB2191212FB--