From: Luke Dashjr <luke@dashjr•org>
To: bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org,
Jonas Schnelli <dev@jonasschnelli•ch>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP proposal: NODE_NETWORK_LIMITED service bits
Date: Thu, 11 May 2017 19:24:21 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <201705111924.22055.luke@dashjr.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <E1313B4E-6061-49CA-9E8C-E5FD468531C0@jonasschnelli.ch>
> A peer signaling NODE_NETWORK_LIMITED_LOW & NODE_NETWORK_LIMITED_HIGH MUST
> be capable of serving at least the last 7'056 blocks (~49 days)
> (NODE_NETWORK_LIMITED_HIGH's value ^2).
Is 49 days particularly useful? Would it be a problem to instead leave both-
bits undefined? I'm thinking this might be better as a way to indicate "7
days, plus a deterministically chosen set of historical blocks"...
> Current Bitcoin-Core pruned full nodes guarantees a minimum of 288 blocks,
> thus allowing to signal NODE_NETWORK_LIMITED_LOW with the current minimum
> configuration.
This is technically true right now, but as soon as segwit activates, it will
no longer be... Therefore, I suggest striking it from the BIP, expounding on
it in greater detail, or making it true for the longer term.
> Peers following this BIP SHOULD connect a limited amount of their available
> outbound connections to peers signaling one or both of the
> NODE_NETWORK_LIMITED_* service bits if they expect to request less blocks
> than the signaled number.
This isn't entirely clear whether it refers to peers downloading blocks, or
peers serving them. (I assume the former, but it should be clarified.)
> Light clients (and such) who are not checking the nServiceFlags (service
> bits) from a relayed addr-message may unwillingly connect to a pruned peer
> and ask for (filtered) blocks at a depth below their pruned depth.
Wouldn't this already be a problem, without the BIP?
Luke
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-05-11 19:25 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-05-11 15:13 Jonas Schnelli
2017-05-11 18:17 ` Gregory Maxwell
2017-05-11 19:24 ` Luke Dashjr [this message]
2017-05-11 20:10 ` Jonas Schnelli
2017-05-11 20:36 ` Aymeric Vitte
2017-05-11 21:05 ` Eric Voskuil
2017-05-12 2:22 ` Gregory Maxwell
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=201705111924.22055.luke@dashjr.org \
--to=luke@dashjr$(echo .)org \
--cc=bitcoin-dev@lists$(echo .)linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=dev@jonasschnelli$(echo .)ch \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox