From: Jonas Schnelli <dev@jonasschnelli•ch>
To: Luke Dashjr <luke@dashjr•org>
Cc: bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP proposal: NODE_NETWORK_LIMITED service bits
Date: Thu, 11 May 2017 22:10:08 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <61C68F26-AD36-4AB4-A065-020BD549CEBC@jonasschnelli.ch> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <201705111924.22055.luke@dashjr.org>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1955 bytes --]
> 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"…
I though two service bits allow three states and we should define all three combinations.
But I guess an adequate „definition“ would be to reserve it for future „definitions“.
Or use Gregory's proposal of min 2016*2 blocks & keep it „undefined“ for now.
49 days was chosen to allow SPV peers to be „offline“ for a month and still be capable to catch-up with a peer pruned to a datadir of ~10GB.
>
> 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.
AFAIK Core does also guaranteed the 288 blocks post segwit activation:
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/08a7316c144f9f2516db8fa62400893f4358c5ae/src/validation.h#L204
But maybe I’m confused.
>
>> 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.)
Indeed. I’ll try to make that more clear.
>
>> 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?
AFAIK, Core does currently only relay NODE_NETWORK addresses.
But yes, It may be a problem already.
</jonas>
[-- Attachment #2: Message signed with OpenPGP --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-05-11 20:10 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
2017-05-11 20:10 ` Jonas Schnelli [this message]
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=61C68F26-AD36-4AB4-A065-020BD549CEBC@jonasschnelli.ch \
--to=dev@jonasschnelli$(echo .)ch \
--cc=bitcoin-dev@lists$(echo .)linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=luke@dashjr$(echo .)org \
/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