Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Proposal: MultiBit as default desktop client on bitcoin.org

From: John Dillon <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2013 10:59:32 +0000

On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 6:41 PM, Gregory Maxwell <[email-masked]> wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 11:04 AM, Luke-Jr <[email-masked]> wrote:
>> On Thursday, June 27, 2013 5:30:21 PM Jeff Garzik wrote:
>>> * Very real possibility of an overall net reduction of full nodes on P2P
>>> network
>> Even a reduction of *nodes at all*, as I've never seen a listening bitcoinj or
>> MultiBit node. :/
>> Jim, will MultiBit be adding p2p listening support?
>
> Without validation listening isn't currently very useful. :( Maybe it
> could be somewhat more with some protocol additions.

Possible non-validation data that can be usefully propagated:

1) Block headers.

2) *Confirmed* transactions linked to an aformentioned blockheader.

3) Proof-of-work/sacrifice limited P2P messages, for instance to
co-ordinate trust-free-mixes or act as a communication channel for
micropayment channels.

4) With UTXO existance proof support propagate transactions
accompanied by proofs that all inputs exist. This would also allow for
implementation of Peter's low-bandwidth decentralized P2Pool proposal.

5) UTXO fraud proofs. (one day)

Strictly speaking #2 doesn't even need the protocol to be changed
actually as it can be handled entirely within the existing INV/getdata
mechanism. Sure someone could throw away a lot of hashing power and
get an invalid block propagated, but really so what? SPV nodes should
always take confirmations with a grain of salt anyway.