Re: [Bitcoin-development] Feedback request: colored coins protocol
Thanks for the feedback Mark. (1) there is absolutely no reason to include asset tagging information if it is not validated Sure, there is a good reason to include it in the blockchain: so that clients don't need external information to recognize colored coins. Also, I'm not sure what you mean by not validated, in that proposal, the tagged transaction is the authoritative source of information. that just bloats the block chain 9 bytes is much less than what Mastercoin and counterparty are doing (certainly under the 40 bytes allowed). Have you seen the padded order-based coloring scheme worked out here? Yes I have seen it and find the padding quite clumsy and unintuitive. A more general solution is the one I described in my original post, where the color value is entirely separate from the satoshi value, and encoded separately: if you have to have an additional padding value to calculate color_value = satoshi_value - padding, you might as well have color_value directly, independently from satoshi_value. But I don't even think it is necessary: (2) And needing a capital of 54 btc for a million shares is totally unacceptable. An easy workaround is to have various scales, the same way you have $1 bills, $5 bills an $10 bills. I don't see that as a big problem. That way the protocol is more lightweight and simple. Also those 54 BTC (actually 5.4 BTC if the dust is now 540 satoshis) become part of the capital of the company, and can always be recovered by uncoloring the shares. It's an investment, not an expense, so I think it is acceptable. Best, Flavien On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 12:23 AM, Mark Friedenbach m...@monetize.io wrote: On 04/06/2014 01:59 PM, Flavien Charlon wrote: Do you think this is the right approach? No, I'm afraid it has significant flaws. The two chief flaws are (1) there is absolutely no reason to include asset tagging information if it is not validated - that just bloats the block chain, and (2) you shouldn't be using fixed increments for share sizes either. It's not future-proof as the minimum output size changes based on the minimum fee (currently 540 satoshis, not 5,400, and it will float in the near future). And needing a capital of 54 btc for a million shares is totally unacceptable. Flavien, I know that I've seen you on the Bitcoin-X mailing list, where these issues have been mostly worked out: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/bitcoinx Have you seen the padded order-based coloring scheme worked out here? https://github.com/bitcoinx/colored-coin-tools/wiki/colored_coins_intro Kind regards, Mark Friedenbach -- ___ Bitcoin-development mailing list Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development -- Put Bad Developers to Shame Dominate Development with Jenkins Continuous Integration Continuously Automate Build, Test Deployment Start a new project now. Try Jenkins in the cloud. http://p.sf.net/sfu/13600_Cloudbees_APR___ Bitcoin-development mailing list Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
Re: [Bitcoin-development] Why are we bleeding nodes?
I'm glad to see that I'm not the only one concerned about the consistent dropping of nodes. Though I think that the fundamental question should be: how many nodes do we really need? Obviously more is better, but it's difficult to say how concerned we should be without more information. I posted my thoughts last month: http://coinchomp.com/2014/03/19/bitcoin-nodes-many-enough/ I have begun working on my node monitoring project and will post updates if it results in me gaining any new insights about the network. - Jameson On 04/07/2014 07:34 AM, Mike Hearn wrote: At the start of February we had 10,000 bitcoin nodes. Now we have 8,500 and still falling: http://getaddr.bitnodes.io/dashboard/chart/?days=60 I know all the reasons why people *might* stop running a node (uses too much disk space, bandwidth, lost interest etc). But does anyone have any idea how we might get more insight into what's really going on? It'd be convenient if the subVer contained the operating system, as then we could tell if the bleed was mostly from desktops/laptops (Windows/Mac), which would be expected, or from virtual servers (Linux), which would be more concerning. When you set up a Tor node, you can add your email address to the config file and the Tor project sends you emails from time to time about things you should know about. If we did the same, we could have a little exit survey: if your node disappears for long enough, we could email the operator and ask why they stopped. -- Put Bad Developers to Shame Dominate Development with Jenkins Continuous Integration Continuously Automate Build, Test Deployment Start a new project now. Try Jenkins in the cloud. http://p.sf.net/sfu/13600_Cloudbees_APR ___ Bitcoin-development mailing list Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development -- Put Bad Developers to Shame Dominate Development with Jenkins Continuous Integration Continuously Automate Build, Test Deployment Start a new project now. Try Jenkins in the cloud. http://p.sf.net/sfu/13600_Cloudbees_APR ___ Bitcoin-development mailing list Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
Re: [Bitcoin-development] Feedback request: colored coins protocol
On 4/7/14, Flavien Charlon flavien.char...@coinprism.com wrote: Also those 54 BTC (actually 5.4 BTC if the dust is now 540 satoshis) become part of the capital of the company, and can always be recovered by uncoloring the shares. It's an investment, not an expense, so I think it is acceptable. This doesn't make much sense to me. If you print shares on gold plates instead of paper, is that gold part of the capital of the company? I don't think so. -- Put Bad Developers to Shame Dominate Development with Jenkins Continuous Integration Continuously Automate Build, Test Deployment Start a new project now. Try Jenkins in the cloud. http://p.sf.net/sfu/13600_Cloudbees_APR ___ Bitcoin-development mailing list Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
Re: [Bitcoin-development] Why are we bleeding nodes?
On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 2:19 PM, Jameson Lopp jameson.l...@gmail.com wrote: I'm glad to see that I'm not the only one concerned about the consistent dropping of nodes. Though I think that the fundamental question should be: how many nodes do we really need? Obviously more is better, but it's difficult to say how concerned we should be without more information. I posted my thoughts last month: http://coinchomp.com/2014/03/19/bitcoin-nodes-many-enough/ In my opinion, the number of full nodes doesn't matter (as long as it's enough to satisfy demand by other nodes). What matters is how hard it is to run one. If someone is interesting in verifying that nobody is cheating on the network, can they, and can they without significant investment? Whether they actually will depends also no how interesting the currency and its digital transfers are. On 04/07/2014 07:34 AM, Mike Hearn wrote: At the start of February we had 10,000 bitcoin nodes. Now we have 8,500 and still falling: http://getaddr.bitnodes.io/dashboard/chart/?days=60 My own network crawler (which feeds my DNS seeder) hasn't seen any significant drop that I remember, but I don't have actual logs. It's seeing around 6000 well reachable nodes currently, which is the highest number I've ever seen (though it's been around 6000 for quite a while now). -- Pieter -- Put Bad Developers to Shame Dominate Development with Jenkins Continuous Integration Continuously Automate Build, Test Deployment Start a new project now. Try Jenkins in the cloud. http://p.sf.net/sfu/13600_Cloudbees_APR ___ Bitcoin-development mailing list Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
Re: [Bitcoin-development] Why are we bleeding nodes?
In my opinion, the number of full nodes doesn't matter (as long as it's enough to satisfy demand by other nodes). Correct. Still, a high number of nodes has a few other benefits: 1) The more nodes there are, the cheaper it should be to run each one, given that the bandwidth and CPU for serving the chain will be spread over more people. 2) It makes Bitcoin *seem* bigger, more robust and more decentralised, because there are more people uniting to run it. So there's a psychological benefit. Also, we don't have a good way to measure capacity vs demand at the moment. Whether we have enough capacity is rather a shot in the dark right now. What matters is how hard it is to run one. Which is why I'm interested to learn the reason behind the drop. Is it insufficient interest, or is running a node too painful? For this purpose I'd like to exclude people running Bitcoin Core on laptops or non-dedicated desktops. I don't think full nodes will ever make sense for consumer wallets again, and I see the bleeding off of those people as natural and expected (as Satoshi did). But if someone feels it's too hard to run on a cheap server then that'd concern me. My own network crawler (which feeds my DNS seeder) hasn't seen any significant drop It would be good to explain the difference, but I suspect your definition of well reachable excludes people running Core at home. From the diurnal cycle we see in Addy's graphs it's clear some nodes are being shut down when people go to bed. So if we have 6000 nodes on servers and 2000 at home, then I'd expect Addy's graphs and yours to slowly come into alignment as people give up using Core as a consumer wallet. -- Put Bad Developers to Shame Dominate Development with Jenkins Continuous Integration Continuously Automate Build, Test Deployment Start a new project now. Try Jenkins in the cloud. http://p.sf.net/sfu/13600_Cloudbees_APR___ Bitcoin-development mailing list Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
Re: [Bitcoin-development] Why are we bleeding nodes?
On 04/07/2014 08:26 AM, Pieter Wuille wrote: In my opinion, the number of full nodes doesn't matter (as long as it's enough to satisfy demand by other nodes). I agree, but if we don't quantify demand then we are practically blind. What is the plan? To wait until SPV clients start lagging / timing out because their requests cannot be handled by the nodes? For all I know, the network would run just fine on 100 nodes. But not knowing really irks me as an engineer. - Jameson -- Put Bad Developers to Shame Dominate Development with Jenkins Continuous Integration Continuously Automate Build, Test Deployment Start a new project now. Try Jenkins in the cloud. http://p.sf.net/sfu/13600_Cloudbees_APR ___ Bitcoin-development mailing list Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
Re: [Bitcoin-development] Why are we bleeding nodes?
They're _not_ phasing out into SPV wallets from what I can say. At around the 24th of February, there has been a sharp change of the current installs graph of Bitcoin Wallet. That number used to grow at about 20.000 per month. After that date until now, it just barely moves horizontal. My guess is that a large number of users have lost interest after they lost their money in MtGox. The 24th of February coincides with the final shutdown, according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mt._Gox#February_2014_shutdown_and_bankruptcy On 04/07/2014 02:17 PM, Ricardo Filipe wrote: phasing out of bitcoinqt into spv wallets? 2014-04-07 12:34 GMT+01:00 Mike Hearn m...@plan99.net: At the start of February we had 10,000 bitcoin nodes. Now we have 8,500 and still falling: http://getaddr.bitnodes.io/dashboard/chart/?days=60 I know all the reasons why people might stop running a node (uses too much disk space, bandwidth, lost interest etc). But does anyone have any idea how we might get more insight into what's really going on? It'd be convenient if the subVer contained the operating system, as then we could tell if the bleed was mostly from desktops/laptops (Windows/Mac), which would be expected, or from virtual servers (Linux), which would be more concerning. When you set up a Tor node, you can add your email address to the config file and the Tor project sends you emails from time to time about things you should know about. If we did the same, we could have a little exit survey: if your node disappears for long enough, we could email the operator and ask why they stopped. -- Put Bad Developers to Shame Dominate Development with Jenkins Continuous Integration Continuously Automate Build, Test Deployment Start a new project now. Try Jenkins in the cloud. http://p.sf.net/sfu/13600_Cloudbees_APR ___ Bitcoin-development mailing list Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development -- Put Bad Developers to Shame Dominate Development with Jenkins Continuous Integration Continuously Automate Build, Test Deployment Start a new project now. Try Jenkins in the cloud. http://p.sf.net/sfu/13600_Cloudbees_APR -- Put Bad Developers to Shame Dominate Development with Jenkins Continuous Integration Continuously Automate Build, Test Deployment Start a new project now. Try Jenkins in the cloud. http://p.sf.net/sfu/13600_Cloudbees_APR ___ Bitcoin-development mailing list Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
Re: [Bitcoin-development] Why are we bleeding nodes?
On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 4:34 AM, Mike Hearn m...@plan99.net wrote: At the start of February we had 10,000 bitcoin nodes. Now we have 8,500 and still falling: FWIW, A few months before that we had even less than 8500 by the bitnodes count. Bitcoin.org recommends people away from running Bitcoin-QT now, so I'm not sure that we should generally find that trend surprising. -- Put Bad Developers to Shame Dominate Development with Jenkins Continuous Integration Continuously Automate Build, Test Deployment Start a new project now. Try Jenkins in the cloud. http://p.sf.net/sfu/13600_Cloudbees_APR ___ Bitcoin-development mailing list Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
Re: [Bitcoin-development] Why are we bleeding nodes?
On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 6:50 AM, Gregory Maxwell gmaxw...@gmail.com wrote: FWIW, A few months before that we had even less than 8500 by the bitnodes count. Gah, accidentally send I wanted to continue here that it was less than 8500 and had been falling pretty consistently for months, basically since the bitcoin.org change. Unfortunately it looks like the old bitnodes.io data isn't available anymore, so I'm going off my memory here. The Bitnodes counts have always been somewhat higher than my or sipa's node counts too, fwiw. -- Put Bad Developers to Shame Dominate Development with Jenkins Continuous Integration Continuously Automate Build, Test Deployment Start a new project now. Try Jenkins in the cloud. http://p.sf.net/sfu/13600_Cloudbees_APR ___ Bitcoin-development mailing list Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
Re: [Bitcoin-development] Why are we bleeding nodes?
The Bitnodes project updated their counting algorithm a month or so ago. It used to be slower and less accurate - prior to their update, it was reporting in excess of 100,000 nodes. - Jameson On 04/07/2014 09:53 AM, Gregory Maxwell wrote: On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 6:50 AM, Gregory Maxwell gmaxw...@gmail.com wrote: FWIW, A few months before that we had even less than 8500 by the bitnodes count. Gah, accidentally send I wanted to continue here that it was less than 8500 and had been falling pretty consistently for months, basically since the bitcoin.org change. Unfortunately it looks like the old bitnodes.io data isn't available anymore, so I'm going off my memory here. The Bitnodes counts have always been somewhat higher than my or sipa's node counts too, fwiw. -- Put Bad Developers to Shame Dominate Development with Jenkins Continuous Integration Continuously Automate Build, Test Deployment Start a new project now. Try Jenkins in the cloud. http://p.sf.net/sfu/13600_Cloudbees_APR ___ Bitcoin-development mailing list Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development -- Put Bad Developers to Shame Dominate Development with Jenkins Continuous Integration Continuously Automate Build, Test Deployment Start a new project now. Try Jenkins in the cloud. http://p.sf.net/sfu/13600_Cloudbees_APR ___ Bitcoin-development mailing list Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
Re: [Bitcoin-development] Feedback request: colored coins protocol
Jorge, they'd have to be. Otherwise, assuming the price of the share goes low enough, you could buy a share of the company, melt the gold plate, and sell it for a profit. If the gold is part of the capital of the company, the cheapest a share can be is the price of the gold on which the stock certificate is printed. This is why I think the importance of padding with colored coins is overblown. On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 1:12 PM, Jorge Timón jti...@monetize.io wrote: On 4/7/14, Flavien Charlon flavien.char...@coinprism.com wrote: Also those 54 BTC (actually 5.4 BTC if the dust is now 540 satoshis) become part of the capital of the company, and can always be recovered by uncoloring the shares. It's an investment, not an expense, so I think it is acceptable. This doesn't make much sense to me. If you print shares on gold plates instead of paper, is that gold part of the capital of the company? I don't think so. -- Put Bad Developers to Shame Dominate Development with Jenkins Continuous Integration Continuously Automate Build, Test Deployment Start a new project now. Try Jenkins in the cloud. http://p.sf.net/sfu/13600_Cloudbees_APR___ Bitcoin-development mailing list Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
Re: [Bitcoin-development] Why are we bleeding nodes?
On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 6:58 AM, Jameson Lopp jameson.l...@gmail.com wrote: The Bitnodes project updated their counting algorithm a month or so ago. It used to be slower and less accurate - prior to their update, it was reporting in excess of 100,000 nodes. Nah. It reported multiple metrics. The 100,000 number was an mostly useless metric that just counted the number of distinct addr messages floating around the network, which contains a lot of junk. They also reported an actual connectable node count previously and while they may have tweaked things here and there as far as I can tell it has been consistent with the numbers they are using in the headlines now. -- Put Bad Developers to Shame Dominate Development with Jenkins Continuous Integration Continuously Automate Build, Test Deployment Start a new project now. Try Jenkins in the cloud. http://p.sf.net/sfu/13600_Cloudbees_APR ___ Bitcoin-development mailing list Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
Re: [Bitcoin-development] Why are we bleeding nodes?
My guess is that a large number of users have lost interest after they lost their money in MtGox. The 24th of February coincides with the final shutdown Sigh. It would not be surprising if MtGox has indeed dealt the community a critical blow in this regard. TX traffic is down since then too: https://blockchain.info/charts/n-transactions-excluding-popular?timespan=60daysshowDataPoints=falsedaysAverageString=1show_header=truescale=0address= Judging from comments and the leaked user db, it seems a lot of well known people lost money there (not me fortunately). I wish I could say people have learned but from the size of the deposit base at Bitstamp they clearly have not. A lot of Bitcoin users don't seem to be ready to be their own bank, yet still want to own some on the assumption everyone else either is or soon will be. So it's really only a matter of time until something goes wrong with some large bitbank again, either Bitstamp or Coinbase. Some days I wonder if Bitcoin will be killed off by people who just refuse to use it properly before it ever gets a chance to shine. The general public doesn't distinguish between Bitcoin users who deposit with a third party and the real Bitcoin users who don't. -- Put Bad Developers to Shame Dominate Development with Jenkins Continuous Integration Continuously Automate Build, Test Deployment Start a new project now. Try Jenkins in the cloud. http://p.sf.net/sfu/13600_Cloudbees_APR___ Bitcoin-development mailing list Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
Re: [Bitcoin-development] Why are we bleeding nodes?
Indeed, fully agreed. The only way to really make progress here is to make the UX of being your own bank not only as good as trusting a third party, but better. I've been encouraged by the rise of risk analysis services, but we need to integrate them into wallets more widely for them to have much impact. Otherwise people get to pick between a variety of wallets, none of which have *all* the features they want. And TREZOR is cool, albeit, something that's going to be for committed users only. On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 4:15 PM, Eric Martindale e...@ericmartindale.comwrote: We need to make it so mind-numbingly simple to run Bitcoin correctly that the average user doesn't find reasons to do so in the course of normal use. Right now, Coinbase and Bitstamp are winning in the user experience battle, which technically endanger the user, and by proxy the Bitcoin network. Multi-sig as a default is a start. It won't succeed unless the user experience is simply better than trusted third parties, but we need to start the education process with the very basic fundamental: trusting a third-party with full access to your Bitcoin is just replacing one centralized banking system with another. Eric Martindale Developer Evangelist, BitPay +1 (919) 374-2020 On Apr 7, 2014 7:05 AM, Mike Hearn m...@plan99.net wrote: My guess is that a large number of users have lost interest after they lost their money in MtGox. The 24th of February coincides with the final shutdown Sigh. It would not be surprising if MtGox has indeed dealt the community a critical blow in this regard. TX traffic is down since then too: https://blockchain.info/charts/n-transactions-excluding-popular?timespan=60daysshowDataPoints=falsedaysAverageString=1show_header=truescale=0address= Judging from comments and the leaked user db, it seems a lot of well known people lost money there (not me fortunately). I wish I could say people have learned but from the size of the deposit base at Bitstamp they clearly have not. A lot of Bitcoin users don't seem to be ready to be their own bank, yet still want to own some on the assumption everyone else either is or soon will be. So it's really only a matter of time until something goes wrong with some large bitbank again, either Bitstamp or Coinbase. Some days I wonder if Bitcoin will be killed off by people who just refuse to use it properly before it ever gets a chance to shine. The general public doesn't distinguish between Bitcoin users who deposit with a third party and the real Bitcoin users who don't. -- Put Bad Developers to Shame Dominate Development with Jenkins Continuous Integration Continuously Automate Build, Test Deployment Start a new project now. Try Jenkins in the cloud. http://p.sf.net/sfu/13600_Cloudbees_APR ___ Bitcoin-development mailing list Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development -- Put Bad Developers to Shame Dominate Development with Jenkins Continuous Integration Continuously Automate Build, Test Deployment Start a new project now. Try Jenkins in the cloud. http://p.sf.net/sfu/13600_Cloudbees_APR___ Bitcoin-development mailing list Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
Re: [Bitcoin-development] Why are we bleeding nodes?
We need to make it so mind-numbingly simple to run Bitcoin correctly that the average user doesn't find reasons to do so in the course of normal use. Right now, Coinbase and Bitstamp are winning in the user experience battle, which technically endanger the user, and by proxy the Bitcoin network. Multi-sig as a default is a start. It won't succeed unless the user experience is simply better than trusted third parties, but we need to start the education process with the very basic fundamental: trusting a third-party with full access to your Bitcoin is just replacing one centralized banking system with another. Eric Martindale Developer Evangelist, BitPay +1 (919) 374-2020 On Apr 7, 2014 7:05 AM, Mike Hearn m...@plan99.net wrote: My guess is that a large number of users have lost interest after they lost their money in MtGox. The 24th of February coincides with the final shutdown Sigh. It would not be surprising if MtGox has indeed dealt the community a critical blow in this regard. TX traffic is down since then too: https://blockchain.info/charts/n-transactions-excluding-popular?timespan=60daysshowDataPoints=falsedaysAverageString=1show_header=truescale=0address= Judging from comments and the leaked user db, it seems a lot of well known people lost money there (not me fortunately). I wish I could say people have learned but from the size of the deposit base at Bitstamp they clearly have not. A lot of Bitcoin users don't seem to be ready to be their own bank, yet still want to own some on the assumption everyone else either is or soon will be. So it's really only a matter of time until something goes wrong with some large bitbank again, either Bitstamp or Coinbase. Some days I wonder if Bitcoin will be killed off by people who just refuse to use it properly before it ever gets a chance to shine. The general public doesn't distinguish between Bitcoin users who deposit with a third party and the real Bitcoin users who don't. -- Put Bad Developers to Shame Dominate Development with Jenkins Continuous Integration Continuously Automate Build, Test Deployment Start a new project now. Try Jenkins in the cloud. http://p.sf.net/sfu/13600_Cloudbees_APR ___ Bitcoin-development mailing list Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development -- Put Bad Developers to Shame Dominate Development with Jenkins Continuous Integration Continuously Automate Build, Test Deployment Start a new project now. Try Jenkins in the cloud. http://p.sf.net/sfu/13600_Cloudbees_APR___ Bitcoin-development mailing list Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
Re: [Bitcoin-development] Feedback request: colored coins protocol
Flavien, capital is wealth or resources available for the stated purpose of the company. These bitcoins represent nothing more than a speculative floor owned by the investors, not the company. On 04/07/2014 07:00 AM, Flavien Charlon wrote: Jorge, they'd have to be. Otherwise, assuming the price of the share goes low enough, you could buy a share of the company, melt the gold plate, and sell it for a profit. If the gold is part of the capital of the company, the cheapest a share can be is the price of the gold on which the stock certificate is printed. This is why I think the importance of padding with colored coins is overblown. On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 1:12 PM, Jorge Timón jti...@monetize.io mailto:jti...@monetize.io wrote: On 4/7/14, Flavien Charlon flavien.char...@coinprism.com mailto:flavien.char...@coinprism.com wrote: Also those 54 BTC (actually 5.4 BTC if the dust is now 540 satoshis) become part of the capital of the company, and can always be recovered by uncoloring the shares. It's an investment, not an expense, so I think it is acceptable. This doesn't make much sense to me. If you print shares on gold plates instead of paper, is that gold part of the capital of the company? I don't think so. -- Put Bad Developers to Shame Dominate Development with Jenkins Continuous Integration Continuously Automate Build, Test Deployment Start a new project now. Try Jenkins in the cloud. http://p.sf.net/sfu/13600_Cloudbees_APR ___ Bitcoin-development mailing list Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
Re: [Bitcoin-development] Why are we bleeding nodes?
I would point to bandwidth as the most important issue to the casual user who runs a node at home. Few casual users have the know-how to set up QoS rules and thus become quite annoyed when their Internet connection is discernibly slowed. - Jameson On 04/07/2014 11:53 AM, Gregory Maxwell wrote: On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 8:45 AM, Justus Ranvier justusranv...@gmail.com wrote: 1. The resource requirements of a full node are moving beyond the capabilities of casual users. This isn't inherently a problem - after all most people don't grow their own food, tailor their own clothes, or keep blacksmith tools handy in to forge their own horseshoes either. Right now running a full node consumes about $1 in disk space non-reoccurring and costs a couple cents in power per month. This isn't to say things are all ducky. But if you're going to say the resource requirements are beyond the capabilities of casual users I'm afraid I'm going to have to say: citation needed. -- Put Bad Developers to Shame Dominate Development with Jenkins Continuous Integration Continuously Automate Build, Test Deployment Start a new project now. Try Jenkins in the cloud. http://p.sf.net/sfu/13600_Cloudbees_APR ___ Bitcoin-development mailing list Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development -- Put Bad Developers to Shame Dominate Development with Jenkins Continuous Integration Continuously Automate Build, Test Deployment Start a new project now. Try Jenkins in the cloud. http://p.sf.net/sfu/13600_Cloudbees_APR ___ Bitcoin-development mailing list Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
Re: [Bitcoin-development] Why are we bleeding nodes?
Right now running a full-node on my home DSL connection (1Mbps) makes other internet activity periodically unresponsive. I think we've already hit a point where resource requirements are pushing out casual users, although of course we can't be certain that accounts for all lost nodes. On 04/07/2014 08:53 AM, Gregory Maxwell wrote: On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 8:45 AM, Justus Ranvier justusranv...@gmail.com wrote: 1. The resource requirements of a full node are moving beyond the capabilities of casual users. This isn't inherently a problem - after all most people don't grow their own food, tailor their own clothes, or keep blacksmith tools handy in to forge their own horseshoes either. Right now running a full node consumes about $1 in disk space non-reoccurring and costs a couple cents in power per month. This isn't to say things are all ducky. But if you're going to say the resource requirements are beyond the capabilities of casual users I'm afraid I'm going to have to say: citation needed. -- Put Bad Developers to Shame Dominate Development with Jenkins Continuous Integration Continuously Automate Build, Test Deployment Start a new project now. Try Jenkins in the cloud. http://p.sf.net/sfu/13600_Cloudbees_APR ___ Bitcoin-development mailing list Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development . -- Put Bad Developers to Shame Dominate Development with Jenkins Continuous Integration Continuously Automate Build, Test Deployment Start a new project now. Try Jenkins in the cloud. http://p.sf.net/sfu/13600_Cloudbees_APR ___ Bitcoin-development mailing list Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
Re: [Bitcoin-development] Why are we bleeding nodes?
On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 9:27 AM, Mark Friedenbach m...@monetize.io wrote: Right now running a full-node on my home DSL connection (1Mbps) makes other internet activity periodically unresponsive. I think we've already hit a point where resource requirements are pushing out casual users, although of course we can't be certain that accounts for all lost nodes. That is an implementation issue— mostly one that arises as an indirect consequence of not having headers first and the parallel fetch, not a requirements issue. Under the current bitcoin validity rules it should be completely reasonable to run a full contributing node with no more than 30 kb/s inbound (reviving two copies of everything, blocks + tansactions ) and 60 kbit/sec outbound (sending out four copies of everything). (So long as you're sending out = what you're taking in you're contributing to the network's capacity). Throw in a factor of two for bursting, though not every node needs to be contributing super low latency capacity. This is absolutely not the case with the current implementation, but it's not a requirements thing. -- Put Bad Developers to Shame Dominate Development with Jenkins Continuous Integration Continuously Automate Build, Test Deployment Start a new project now. Try Jenkins in the cloud. http://p.sf.net/sfu/13600_Cloudbees_APR ___ Bitcoin-development mailing list Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
Re: [Bitcoin-development] Why are we bleeding nodes?
For what it's worth, the number of nodes rose dramatically during the China bullrun (I recall 45k in China alone) and dropped as dramatically as the price after the first PBOC announcement designed to cool down bitcoin trading in China. On 7 April 2014 12:34, Mike Hearn m...@plan99.net wrote: At the start of February we had 10,000 bitcoin nodes. Now we have 8,500 and still falling: http://getaddr.bitnodes.io/dashboard/chart/?days=60 I know all the reasons why people *might* stop running a node (uses too much disk space, bandwidth, lost interest etc). But does anyone have any idea how we might get more insight into what's really going on? It'd be convenient if the subVer contained the operating system, as then we could tell if the bleed was mostly from desktops/laptops (Windows/Mac), which would be expected, or from virtual servers (Linux), which would be more concerning. When you set up a Tor node, you can add your email address to the config file and the Tor project sends you emails from time to time about things you should know about. If we did the same, we could have a little exit survey: if your node disappears for long enough, we could email the operator and ask why they stopped. -- Put Bad Developers to Shame Dominate Development with Jenkins Continuous Integration Continuously Automate Build, Test Deployment Start a new project now. Try Jenkins in the cloud. http://p.sf.net/sfu/13600_Cloudbees_APR ___ Bitcoin-development mailing list Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development -- Put Bad Developers to Shame Dominate Development with Jenkins Continuous Integration Continuously Automate Build, Test Deployment Start a new project now. Try Jenkins in the cloud. http://p.sf.net/sfu/13600_Cloudbees___ Bitcoin-development mailing list Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
Re: [Bitcoin-development] Why are we bleeding nodes?
On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 10:01 AM, Mark Friedenbach m...@monetize.io wrote: On 04/07/2014 09:57 AM, Gregory Maxwell wrote: That is an implementation issue— mostly one that arises as an indirect consequence of not having headers first and the parallel fetch, not a requirements issue. Oh, absolutely. But the question why are people not running full nodes? has to do with the current implementation, not abstract capabilities of a future version of the bitcoind code base. The distinction is very important because it's a matter of things we can and should fix vs things that cannot be fixed except by changing goals/incentives! Opposite approaches to handling them. When I read resource requirements of a full node are moving beyond I didn't extract from that that there are implementation issues that need to be improved to make it work better for low resource users due to the word requirements. -- Put Bad Developers to Shame Dominate Development with Jenkins Continuous Integration Continuously Automate Build, Test Deployment Start a new project now. Try Jenkins in the cloud. http://p.sf.net/sfu/13600_Cloudbees ___ Bitcoin-development mailing list Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
Re: [Bitcoin-development] Why are we bleeding nodes?
On 04/07/2014 09:57 AM, Gregory Maxwell wrote: That is an implementation issue— mostly one that arises as an indirect consequence of not having headers first and the parallel fetch, not a requirements issue. Oh, absolutely. But the question why are people not running full nodes? has to do with the current implementation, not abstract capabilities of a future version of the bitcoind code base. -- Put Bad Developers to Shame Dominate Development with Jenkins Continuous Integration Continuously Automate Build, Test Deployment Start a new project now. Try Jenkins in the cloud. http://p.sf.net/sfu/13600_Cloudbees ___ Bitcoin-development mailing list Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
Re: [Bitcoin-development] Why are we bleeding nodes?
How difficult would it be to set up a node? Using lots of electricity at home (if required) could be an issue, but I do have a Webfaction account. On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 12:16 PM, Gregory Maxwell gmaxw...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 10:01 AM, Mark Friedenbach m...@monetize.io wrote: On 04/07/2014 09:57 AM, Gregory Maxwell wrote: That is an implementation issue-- mostly one that arises as an indirect consequence of not having headers first and the parallel fetch, not a requirements issue. Oh, absolutely. But the question why are people not running full nodes? has to do with the current implementation, not abstract capabilities of a future version of the bitcoind code base. The distinction is very important because it's a matter of things we can and should fix vs things that cannot be fixed except by changing goals/incentives! Opposite approaches to handling them. When I read resource requirements of a full node are moving beyond I didn't extract from that that there are implementation issues that need to be improved to make it work better for low resource users due to the word requirements. -- Put Bad Developers to Shame Dominate Development with Jenkins Continuous Integration Continuously Automate Build, Test Deployment Start a new project now. Try Jenkins in the cloud. http://p.sf.net/sfu/13600_Cloudbees ___ Bitcoin-development mailing list Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development -- Put Bad Developers to Shame Dominate Development with Jenkins Continuous Integration Continuously Automate Build, Test Deployment Start a new project now. Try Jenkins in the cloud. http://p.sf.net/sfu/13600_Cloudbees___ Bitcoin-development mailing list Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
Re: [Bitcoin-development] Why are we bleeding nodes?
It uses ~no electricity, it's not like mining. The primary resources it needs are disk space and bandwidth, after an intensive initial day or two of building the database. Actually, I wonder if we should start shipping (auditable) pre-baked databases calculated up to the last checkpoint so people can download them and boot up their node right away. Recalculating the entire thing from scratch every time isn't sustainable in the long run anyway. On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 7:35 PM, Brent Shambaugh brent.shamba...@gmail.comwrote: How difficult would it be to set up a node? Using lots of electricity at home (if required) could be an issue, but I do have a Webfaction account. On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 12:16 PM, Gregory Maxwell gmaxw...@gmail.comwrote: On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 10:01 AM, Mark Friedenbach m...@monetize.io wrote: On 04/07/2014 09:57 AM, Gregory Maxwell wrote: That is an implementation issue— mostly one that arises as an indirect consequence of not having headers first and the parallel fetch, not a requirements issue. Oh, absolutely. But the question why are people not running full nodes? has to do with the current implementation, not abstract capabilities of a future version of the bitcoind code base. The distinction is very important because it's a matter of things we can and should fix vs things that cannot be fixed except by changing goals/incentives! Opposite approaches to handling them. When I read resource requirements of a full node are moving beyond I didn't extract from that that there are implementation issues that need to be improved to make it work better for low resource users due to the word requirements. -- Put Bad Developers to Shame Dominate Development with Jenkins Continuous Integration Continuously Automate Build, Test Deployment Start a new project now. Try Jenkins in the cloud. http://p.sf.net/sfu/13600_Cloudbees ___ Bitcoin-development mailing list Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development -- Put Bad Developers to Shame Dominate Development with Jenkins Continuous Integration Continuously Automate Build, Test Deployment Start a new project now. Try Jenkins in the cloud. http://p.sf.net/sfu/13600_Cloudbees ___ Bitcoin-development mailing list Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development -- Put Bad Developers to Shame Dominate Development with Jenkins Continuous Integration Continuously Automate Build, Test Deployment Start a new project now. Try Jenkins in the cloud. http://p.sf.net/sfu/13600_Cloudbees___ Bitcoin-development mailing list Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
Re: [Bitcoin-development] Why are we bleeding nodes?
On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 10:40 AM, Mike Hearn m...@plan99.net wrote: Actually, I wonder The actual validation isn't really the problem today. The slowness of the IBD is almost exclusively the lack of parallel fetching and the existence of slow peers. And making the signature gate adaptive (and deploying the 6x faster ECDSA code) would improve that future. Go grab sipa's headers first branch, it has no problem saturating a 20mbit/sec pipe syncing up. -- Put Bad Developers to Shame Dominate Development with Jenkins Continuous Integration Continuously Automate Build, Test Deployment Start a new project now. Try Jenkins in the cloud. http://p.sf.net/sfu/13600_Cloudbees ___ Bitcoin-development mailing list Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
Re: [Bitcoin-development] Why are we bleeding nodes?
I rather prefer to start with SPV and upgrade to full node, if desired. Tamas Blummer http://bitsofproof.com On 07.04.2014, at 19:40, Mike Hearn m...@plan99.net wrote: Actually, I wonder if we should start shipping (auditable) pre-baked databases calculated up to the last checkpoint so people can download them and boot up their node right away. Recalculating the entire thing from scratch every time isn't sustainable in the long run anyway. signature.asc Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail -- Put Bad Developers to Shame Dominate Development with Jenkins Continuous Integration Continuously Automate Build, Test Deployment Start a new project now. Try Jenkins in the cloud. http://p.sf.net/sfu/13600_Cloudbees___ Bitcoin-development mailing list Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
Re: [Bitcoin-development] Why are we bleeding nodes?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 04/07/2014 05:16 PM, Gregory Maxwell wrote: When I read resource requirements of a full node are moving beyond I didn't extract from that that there are implementation issues that need to be improved to make it work better for low resource users due to the word requirements. In order to prevent future confusion: whenever I talk about requirements (or generally use the present tense) , I'm talking about reality as it currently exists. If I ever decide to talk about hypothetical future requirements in some imaginary world of Platonic forms, as opposed to the requirements imposed by the software that's actually available for casual users to download today, I'll mention that specifically. - -- Support online privacy by using email encryption whenever possible. Learn how here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bakOKJFtB-k -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJTQuRkAAoJECoisBQbQ4v07zUH/2wNQ7+0211+wm5oQP/ABHg7 kQVeQcRz8/BhOp3hzv6HiQ9Oaekfz7QhClbJYPUPE3aR2gxGoCgT6B1G2N75q0pG piGVgCeogaBA3Ny91sOPRMv92cGWpbTeyO+rhIIIlYWPiZobTaYttYYm1zF6oc6K CdYzCW9X12/NIXxEkbPnAFJ01Uty0HKccTP+9jex7+gobzl2yCo4MyywwtWF9XEk K9aZ3+3i+12+F4nDMAAimD02SV6dI8GMpahMf4kNXn0CcMefC9A28FdhhApPh7Nx 1phQnMPZMPdYt0aHgjgzt4N+SR/1EOUZaoqk9ccyXh+khBR84tiUEo6NuOIfTGM= =Mr12 -END PGP SIGNATURE- 0x1B438BF4.asc Description: application/pgp-keys -- Put Bad Developers to Shame Dominate Development with Jenkins Continuous Integration Continuously Automate Build, Test Deployment Start a new project now. Try Jenkins in the cloud. http://p.sf.net/sfu/13600_Cloudbees___ Bitcoin-development mailing list Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
Re: [Bitcoin-development] Why are we bleeding nodes?
Okay awesome. It seems like I set up a Litecoin node without knowing it (because it was like this: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=128122.0) I was able to bootstrap it (https://litecoin.info/). On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 12:40 PM, Mike Hearn m...@plan99.net wrote: It uses ~no electricity, it's not like mining. The primary resources it needs are disk space and bandwidth, after an intensive initial day or two of building the database. Actually, I wonder if we should start shipping (auditable) pre-baked databases calculated up to the last checkpoint so people can download them and boot up their node right away. Recalculating the entire thing from scratch every time isn't sustainable in the long run anyway. On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 7:35 PM, Brent Shambaugh brent.shamba...@gmail.com wrote: How difficult would it be to set up a node? Using lots of electricity at home (if required) could be an issue, but I do have a Webfaction account. On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 12:16 PM, Gregory Maxwell gmaxw...@gmail.comwrote: On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 10:01 AM, Mark Friedenbach m...@monetize.io wrote: On 04/07/2014 09:57 AM, Gregory Maxwell wrote: That is an implementation issue-- mostly one that arises as an indirect consequence of not having headers first and the parallel fetch, not a requirements issue. Oh, absolutely. But the question why are people not running full nodes? has to do with the current implementation, not abstract capabilities of a future version of the bitcoind code base. The distinction is very important because it's a matter of things we can and should fix vs things that cannot be fixed except by changing goals/incentives! Opposite approaches to handling them. When I read resource requirements of a full node are moving beyond I didn't extract from that that there are implementation issues that need to be improved to make it work better for low resource users due to the word requirements. -- Put Bad Developers to Shame Dominate Development with Jenkins Continuous Integration Continuously Automate Build, Test Deployment Start a new project now. Try Jenkins in the cloud. http://p.sf.net/sfu/13600_Cloudbees ___ Bitcoin-development mailing list Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development -- Put Bad Developers to Shame Dominate Development with Jenkins Continuous Integration Continuously Automate Build, Test Deployment Start a new project now. Try Jenkins in the cloud. http://p.sf.net/sfu/13600_Cloudbees ___ Bitcoin-development mailing list Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development -- Put Bad Developers to Shame Dominate Development with Jenkins Continuous Integration Continuously Automate Build, Test Deployment Start a new project now. Try Jenkins in the cloud. http://p.sf.net/sfu/13600_Cloudbees___ Bitcoin-development mailing list Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
Re: [Bitcoin-development] Why are we bleeding nodes?
I’m afraid this is a highly simplistic view of the costs of running a full node. My node consumes fantastic amounts of data traffic, which is a real cost. In the 30 days ending Apri 6, my node: * Received 36.8 gb of data * Sent 456.5 gb data At my geographic service location (Singapore), this cost about $90 last month for bandwidth alone. It would be slightly cheaper if I was hosted in the US of course. But anyone can understand that moving a half-terrabyte of data around in a month will not be cheap. On Apr 7, 2014, at 8:53 AM, Gregory Maxwell gmaxw...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 8:45 AM, Justus Ranvier justusranv...@gmail.com wrote: 1. The resource requirements of a full node are moving beyond the capabilities of casual users. This isn't inherently a problem - after all most people don't grow their own food, tailor their own clothes, or keep blacksmith tools handy in to forge their own horseshoes either. Right now running a full node consumes about $1 in disk space non-reoccurring and costs a couple cents in power per month. This isn't to say things are all ducky. But if you're going to say the resource requirements are beyond the capabilities of casual users I'm afraid I'm going to have to say: citation needed. -- Put Bad Developers to Shame Dominate Development with Jenkins Continuous Integration Continuously Automate Build, Test Deployment Start a new project now. Try Jenkins in the cloud. http://p.sf.net/sfu/13600_Cloudbees_APR ___ Bitcoin-development mailing list Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development signature.asc Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail -- Put Bad Developers to Shame Dominate Development with Jenkins Continuous Integration Continuously Automate Build, Test Deployment Start a new project now. Try Jenkins in the cloud. http://p.sf.net/sfu/13600_Cloudbees___ Bitcoin-development mailing list Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
Re: [Bitcoin-development] Why are we bleeding nodes?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 04/07/2014 05:40 PM, Mike Hearn wrote: The primary resources it needs are disk space and bandwidth, after an intensive initial day or two of building the database. Check out the kind of hardware causal users are running these days. The bottleneck is not bulk disk space, but rather IOPS. Most users don't have spare machines to dedicate to the task of running a full node, nor is it acceptable for them to not be able to use their device for other tasks while the node is bootstrapping. - -- Support online privacy by using email encryption whenever possible. Learn how here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bakOKJFtB-k -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJTQuVNAAoJECoisBQbQ4v004EIAMPpQLrVlzCoGjcgALyHV4xK 6JDnlCHXTR72mTlKwcbD6Dpyr/Dl6tcXtdbQi0m3gsbOcAZI/eHtrswgunaq7c1y mTOM2klPE4M8+B/4Ecp+2iK2UM/swlL3z8ryx/HPhgOZ+Rr7AENe3WUYOKiVNE4O YQP1x9c0l09ma3ZU0sLmz2VTyqVzI7yV3mu/+HKcwYnqNrK9i/c8MRhOLdZ0gcUL b2PtjjCdnSNLelZvwSLcqqR5+1oejAVwgt1Aq4RGyZzD9DVdCXUR9c9HWLAs0MEU WPU5gU03YmrE5mkgGHRO3YnDbky0gdAGEw2Phzqd2upud4CLqdhEqA4v6/tQhpk= =BVpU -END PGP SIGNATURE- 0x1B438BF4.asc Description: application/pgp-keys -- Put Bad Developers to Shame Dominate Development with Jenkins Continuous Integration Continuously Automate Build, Test Deployment Start a new project now. Try Jenkins in the cloud. http://p.sf.net/sfu/13600_Cloudbees___ Bitcoin-development mailing list Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
Re: [Bitcoin-development] Why are we bleeding nodes?
* Sent 456.5 gb data At my geographic service location (Singapore), this cost about $90 last month for bandwidth alone. One of the reasons I initiated the (now stalled) PayFile project was in anticipation of this problem: https://github.com/mikehearn/PayFile http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r0BXnWlnIi4feature=youtu.be At some point if you want to actually download and validate the full block chain from scratch, you will have to start paying for it I'm sure. In the meantime: 1. Getting headers-first implemented and rolled out everywhere would reduce the amount of redundant downloading and hopefully reduce transmit traffic network-wide. 2. Implementing chain pruning would allow people to control upload bandwidth consumption by reducing the amount of disk storage they allow. -- Put Bad Developers to Shame Dominate Development with Jenkins Continuous Integration Continuously Automate Build, Test Deployment Start a new project now. Try Jenkins in the cloud. http://p.sf.net/sfu/13600_Cloudbees___ Bitcoin-development mailing list Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
Re: [Bitcoin-development] Feedback request: colored coins protocol
On 4/7/14, Flavien Charlon flavien.char...@coinprism.com wrote: Ok, I guess I'm not using the proper terminology. It would be listed on the Asset section of the company's balance sheet, is what I meant. No, it's an asset for the owner of the share, not the company, just like the gold plates are not assets for the company when someone else holds them. What you're doing is getting less capital for the company due to the money that is going to pay the gold costs. Are you rising capital or selling gold? It doesn't make sense to do both at once. You need money, why would you spend money on gold before asking for other people's money to build your company? Investors will appreciate the convenience of being able to buy shares of your company and gold separately (or not buy gold at all). It may even be more clear for other use cases different than stocks. Does an IOU written in a gold plate make sense to you? -- Put Bad Developers to Shame Dominate Development with Jenkins Continuous Integration Continuously Automate Build, Test Deployment Start a new project now. Try Jenkins in the cloud. http://p.sf.net/sfu/13600_Cloudbees ___ Bitcoin-development mailing list Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
Re: [Bitcoin-development] Why are we bleeding nodes?
Headers first loading allows the node to run SPV from the very first minutes and it can converge to full node by time. This is BTW how newest versions of BOP can work. Pruning however disqualifies the node as a source for bootstrapping an other full node. BTW, did we already agree on the service bits for an archive node? Tamas Blummer http://bitsofproof.com On 07.04.2014, at 20:23, Mike Hearn m...@plan99.net wrote: * Sent 456.5 gb data At my geographic service location (Singapore), this cost about $90 last month for bandwidth alone. One of the reasons I initiated the (now stalled) PayFile project was in anticipation of this problem: https://github.com/mikehearn/PayFile http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r0BXnWlnIi4feature=youtu.be At some point if you want to actually download and validate the full block chain from scratch, you will have to start paying for it I'm sure. In the meantime: Getting headers-first implemented and rolled out everywhere would reduce the amount of redundant downloading and hopefully reduce transmit traffic network-wide. Implementing chain pruning would allow people to control upload bandwidth consumption by reducing the amount of disk storage they allow. -- Put Bad Developers to Shame Dominate Development with Jenkins Continuous Integration Continuously Automate Build, Test Deployment Start a new project now. Try Jenkins in the cloud. http://p.sf.net/sfu/13600_Cloudbees___ Bitcoin-development mailing list Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development signature.asc Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail -- Put Bad Developers to Shame Dominate Development with Jenkins Continuous Integration Continuously Automate Build, Test Deployment Start a new project now. Try Jenkins in the cloud. http://p.sf.net/sfu/13600_Cloudbees___ Bitcoin-development mailing list Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
Re: [Bitcoin-development] Why are we bleeding nodes?
On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 11:35 AM, Tamas Blummer ta...@bitsofproof.com wrote: BTW, did we already agree on the service bits for an archive node? I'm still very concerned that a binary archive bit will cause extreme load hot-spotting and the kind of binary Use lots of resources YES or NO I think we're currently suffering some from, but at that point enshrined in the protocol. It would be much better to extend the addr messages so that nodes can indicate a range or two of blocks that they're serving, so that all nodes can contribute fractionally according to their means. E.g. if you want to offer up 8 GB of distributed storage and contribute to the availability of the blockchain, without having to swollow the whole 20, 30, 40 ... gigabyte pill. Already we need that kind of distributed storage for the most recent blocks to prevent extreme bandwidth load on archives, so extending it to arbitrary ranges is only more complicated because there is currently no room to signal it. -- Put Bad Developers to Shame Dominate Development with Jenkins Continuous Integration Continuously Automate Build, Test Deployment Start a new project now. Try Jenkins in the cloud. http://p.sf.net/sfu/13600_Cloudbees ___ Bitcoin-development mailing list Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
Re: [Bitcoin-development] Why are we bleeding nodes?
Once a single transaction in pruned in a block, the block is no longer eligible to be served to other nodes. Which transactions are pruned can be rather custom e.g. even depending on the wallet(s) of the node, therefore I guess it is more handy to return some bitmap of pruned/full blocks than ranges. Tamas Blummer http://bitsofproof.com On 07.04.2014, at 20:49, Gregory Maxwell gmaxw...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 11:35 AM, Tamas Blummer ta...@bitsofproof.com wrote: BTW, did we already agree on the service bits for an archive node? I'm still very concerned that a binary archive bit will cause extreme load hot-spotting and the kind of binary Use lots of resources YES or NO I think we're currently suffering some from, but at that point enshrined in the protocol. It would be much better to extend the addr messages so that nodes can indicate a range or two of blocks that they're serving, so that all nodes can contribute fractionally according to their means. E.g. if you want to offer up 8 GB of distributed storage and contribute to the availability of the blockchain, without having to swollow the whole 20, 30, 40 ... gigabyte pill. Already we need that kind of distributed storage for the most recent blocks to prevent extreme bandwidth load on archives, so extending it to arbitrary ranges is only more complicated because there is currently no room to signal it. signature.asc Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail -- Put Bad Developers to Shame Dominate Development with Jenkins Continuous Integration Continuously Automate Build, Test Deployment Start a new project now. Try Jenkins in the cloud. http://p.sf.net/sfu/13600_Cloudbees___ Bitcoin-development mailing list Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
Re: [Bitcoin-development] Why are we bleeding nodes?
On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 12:00 PM, Tamas Blummer ta...@bitsofproof.com wrote: Once a single transaction in pruned in a block, the block is no longer eligible to be served to other nodes. Which transactions are pruned can be rather custom e.g. even depending on the wallet(s) of the node, therefore I guess it is more handy to return some bitmap of pruned/full blocks than ranges. This isn't at all how pruning works in Bitcoin-QT (nor is it how I expect pruning to work for any mature implementation). Pruning can work happily on a whole block at a time basis regardless if all the transactions in it are spent or not. -- Put Bad Developers to Shame Dominate Development with Jenkins Continuous Integration Continuously Automate Build, Test Deployment Start a new project now. Try Jenkins in the cloud. http://p.sf.net/sfu/13600_Cloudbees ___ Bitcoin-development mailing list Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
Re: [Bitcoin-development] Why are we bleeding nodes?
On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 12:00 PM, Tamas Blummer ta...@bitsofproof.com wrote: therefore I guess it is more handy to return some bitmap of pruned/full blocks than ranges. A bitmap also means high overhead and— if it's used to advertise non-contiguous blocks— poor locality, since blocks are fetched sequentially. -- Put Bad Developers to Shame Dominate Development with Jenkins Continuous Integration Continuously Automate Build, Test Deployment Start a new project now. Try Jenkins in the cloud. http://p.sf.net/sfu/13600_Cloudbees ___ Bitcoin-development mailing list Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
Re: [Bitcoin-development] Why are we bleeding nodes?
On 04/07/2014 12:00 PM, Tamas Blummer wrote: Once a single transaction in pruned in a block, the block is no longer eligible to be served to other nodes. Which transactions are pruned can be rather custom e.g. even depending on the wallet(s) of the node, therefore I guess it is more handy to return some bitmap of pruned/full blocks than ranges. The point is that the node has decided not to prune transactions from that block, so that it is capable of returning full blocks within that range. -- Put Bad Developers to Shame Dominate Development with Jenkins Continuous Integration Continuously Automate Build, Test Deployment Start a new project now. Try Jenkins in the cloud. http://p.sf.net/sfu/13600_Cloudbees ___ Bitcoin-development mailing list Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
Re: [Bitcoin-development] Why are we bleeding nodes?
Maybe it is not a question of the maturity of the implementation but that of the person making presumptions of it. I consider a fully pruned blockchain being equivalent to the UTXO. Block that hold no more unspent transaction are reduced to a header. There is however no harm if more retained. Tamas Blummer http://bitsofproof.com On 07.04.2014, at 21:02, Gregory Maxwell gmaxw...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 12:00 PM, Tamas Blummer ta...@bitsofproof.com wrote: Once a single transaction in pruned in a block, the block is no longer eligible to be served to other nodes. Which transactions are pruned can be rather custom e.g. even depending on the wallet(s) of the node, therefore I guess it is more handy to return some bitmap of pruned/full blocks than ranges. This isn't at all how pruning works in Bitcoin-QT (nor is it how I expect pruning to work for any mature implementation). Pruning can work happily on a whole block at a time basis regardless if all the transactions in it are spent or not. signature.asc Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail -- Put Bad Developers to Shame Dominate Development with Jenkins Continuous Integration Continuously Automate Build, Test Deployment Start a new project now. Try Jenkins in the cloud. http://p.sf.net/sfu/13600_Cloudbees___ Bitcoin-development mailing list Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
Re: [Bitcoin-development] Why are we bleeding nodes?
Once headers are loaded first there is no reason for sequential loading. Validation has to be sequantial, but that step can be deferred until the blocks before a point are loaded and continous. Tamas Blummer http://bitsofproof.com On 07.04.2014, at 21:03, Gregory Maxwell gmaxw...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 12:00 PM, Tamas Blummer ta...@bitsofproof.com wrote: therefore I guess it is more handy to return some bitmap of pruned/full blocks than ranges. A bitmap also means high overhead and— if it's used to advertise non-contiguous blocks— poor locality, since blocks are fetched sequentially. signature.asc Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail -- Put Bad Developers to Shame Dominate Development with Jenkins Continuous Integration Continuously Automate Build, Test Deployment Start a new project now. Try Jenkins in the cloud. http://p.sf.net/sfu/13600_Cloudbees___ Bitcoin-development mailing list Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
Re: [Bitcoin-development] Feedback request: colored coins protocol
An IOU written in a gold plate sure makes no sense. I see what you are saying, the inconvenience comes from the fact that the buyer has to buy some amount of BTC at the same time as he buys a share. That's why I was making the point that you could have a colored coin representing a single share, a different colored coin representing 10 shares, and another one representing 100 shares (like the different denominations of dollar bills). Assuming you have a proper application layer/UI that can hide this from the user, the need for padding is greatly reduced. My opinion is that the protocol should do the minimum required and remain as simple as possible. If a proper UI can work around this, then it might not be worth complicating the protocol for this. Also, the dust rule may disappear all together one day (it's already been slashed heavily to 540 satoshis), at which point we'll be left with a useless padding parameter. It's easier to add something when you need it than to remove it. But I am posting here to see how people feel about this, and I see you are on the opinion that satoshi_value and color_value should have a degree of freedom between each other. Thanks for the feedback. On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 7:23 PM, Jorge Timón jti...@monetize.io wrote: On 4/7/14, Flavien Charlon flavien.char...@coinprism.com wrote: Ok, I guess I'm not using the proper terminology. It would be listed on the Asset section of the company's balance sheet, is what I meant. No, it's an asset for the owner of the share, not the company, just like the gold plates are not assets for the company when someone else holds them. What you're doing is getting less capital for the company due to the money that is going to pay the gold costs. Are you rising capital or selling gold? It doesn't make sense to do both at once. You need money, why would you spend money on gold before asking for other people's money to build your company? Investors will appreciate the convenience of being able to buy shares of your company and gold separately (or not buy gold at all). It may even be more clear for other use cases different than stocks. Does an IOU written in a gold plate make sense to you? -- Put Bad Developers to Shame Dominate Development with Jenkins Continuous Integration Continuously Automate Build, Test Deployment Start a new project now. Try Jenkins in the cloud. http://p.sf.net/sfu/13600_Cloudbees___ Bitcoin-development mailing list Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
Re: [Bitcoin-development] Why are we bleeding nodes?
On 04/07/2014 12:20 PM, Tamas Blummer wrote: Validation has to be sequantial, but that step can be deferred until the blocks before a point are loaded and continous. And how do you find those blocks? I have a suggestion: have nodes advertise which range of full blocks they possess, then you can perform synchronization from the adversed ranges! -- Put Bad Developers to Shame Dominate Development with Jenkins Continuous Integration Continuously Automate Build, Test Deployment Start a new project now. Try Jenkins in the cloud. http://p.sf.net/sfu/13600_Cloudbees ___ Bitcoin-development mailing list Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
Re: [Bitcoin-development] Why are we bleeding nodes?
You have the trunk defined by the headers. Once a range from genesis to block n is fully downloaded, you may validate upto block n. Furthermore after validation you can prune transactions spent until block n. You would approach the highest block with validation and stop pruning say 100 blocks before it, to leave room for reorgs. Tamas Blummer http://bitsofproof.com On 07.04.2014, at 21:13, Mark Friedenbach m...@monetize.io wrote: On 04/07/2014 12:20 PM, Tamas Blummer wrote: Validation has to be sequantial, but that step can be deferred until the blocks before a point are loaded and continous. And how do you find those blocks? I have a suggestion: have nodes advertise which range of full blocks they possess, then you can perform synchronization from the adversed ranges! -- Put Bad Developers to Shame Dominate Development with Jenkins Continuous Integration Continuously Automate Build, Test Deployment Start a new project now. Try Jenkins in the cloud. http://p.sf.net/sfu/13600_Cloudbees ___ Bitcoin-development mailing list Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development signature.asc Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail -- Put Bad Developers to Shame Dominate Development with Jenkins Continuous Integration Continuously Automate Build, Test Deployment Start a new project now. Try Jenkins in the cloud. http://p.sf.net/sfu/13600_Cloudbees___ Bitcoin-development mailing list Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
Re: [Bitcoin-development] Why are we bleeding nodes?
I hope I'm not thread-jacking here, apologies if so, but that's the approach I've taken with the node I'm working on. Headers can be downloaded and stored in any order, it'll make sense of what the winning chain is. Blocks don't need to be downloaded in any particular order and they don't need to be saved to disk, the UTXO is fully self-contained. That way the concern of storing blocks for seeding (or not) is wholly separated from syncing the UTXO. This allows me to do the initial blockchain sync in ~6 hours when I use my SSD. I only need enough disk space to store the UTXO, and then whatever amount of block data the user would want to store for the health of the network. This project is a bitcoin learning exercise for me, so I can only hope I don't have any critical design flaws in there. :) From: ta...@bitsofproof.com Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2014 21:20:31 +0200 To: gmaxw...@gmail.com CC: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Why are we bleeding nodes? Once headers are loaded first there is no reason for sequential loading. Validation has to be sequantial, but that step can be deferred until the blocks before a point are loaded and continous. Tamas Blummerhttp://bitsofproof.com On 07.04.2014, at 21:03, Gregory Maxwell gmaxw...@gmail.com wrote:On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 12:00 PM, Tamas Blummer ta...@bitsofproof.com wrote: therefore I guess it is more handy to return some bitmap of pruned/full blocks than ranges. A bitmap also means high overhead and— if it's used to advertise non-contiguous blocks— poor locality, since blocks are fetched sequentially. -- Put Bad Developers to Shame Dominate Development with Jenkins Continuous Integration Continuously Automate Build, Test Deployment Start a new project now. Try Jenkins in the cloud. http://p.sf.net/sfu/13600_Cloudbees ___ Bitcoin-development mailing list Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development -- Put Bad Developers to Shame Dominate Development with Jenkins Continuous Integration Continuously Automate Build, Test Deployment Start a new project now. Try Jenkins in the cloud. http://p.sf.net/sfu/13600_Cloudbees___ Bitcoin-development mailing list Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
Re: [Bitcoin-development] Why are we bleeding nodes?
I understand the theoretical benefits of multi-sig. But if you want to make this mind-numbingly simple, do it on the *existing* single-sig. But why in the world do we not have a *business* that offers bitcoin wallet insurance? The bitcoin world (and this list) ran around blaming MtGox and users for being 'stupid' to trust mtgox. So start a multi-level marketing business that offers *insurance* so if your bitcoin wallet gets hacked/stolen/whatever, your 'upstream' or whomever sold you the wallet comes to your house with a new computer or installs the new wallet software, or whatever, or just makes it good. Now, if the **insurance underwriter** decides that multisig will reduce fraud, and **tests it**, then I'd say we do multi-sig. But right now we are just a bunch of technology wizards trying to force our own opinions about what's right and 'simple' for end users without ever asking the damn end-users. And then we call the end-users idiots because some scammer calls them and says I'm calling from Microsoft and your computer is broke, please download this software to fix it. Multi-sig is more magical moon-math that scammers will exploit to con your grandma out of bitcoin, and then your friends will call her a stupid luddite for falling for it. Fix the cultural victim-blaming bullshit and you'll fix the node bleeding problem. On Mon, Apr 07, 2014 at 10:15:15AM -0400, Eric Martindale wrote: We need to make it so mind-numbingly simple to run Bitcoin correctly that the average user doesn't find reasons to do so in the course of normal use. Right now, Coinbase and Bitstamp are winning in the user experience battle, which technically endanger the user, and by proxy the Bitcoin network. Multi-sig as a default is a start. It won't succeed unless the user experience is simply better than trusted third parties, but we need to start the education process with the very basic fundamental: trusting a third-party with full access to your Bitcoin is just replacing one centralized banking system with another. Eric Martindale Developer Evangelist, BitPay +1 (919) 374-2020 On Apr 7, 2014 7:05 AM, Mike Hearn m...@plan99.net wrote: My guess is that a large number of users have lost interest after they lost their money in MtGox. The 24th of February coincides with the final shutdown Sigh. It would not be surprising if MtGox has indeed dealt the community a critical blow in this regard. TX traffic is down since then too: https://blockchain.info/charts/n-transactions-excluding-popular?timespan=60daysshowDataPoints=falsedaysAverageString=1show_header=truescale=0address= Judging from comments and the leaked user db, it seems a lot of well known people lost money there (not me fortunately). I wish I could say people have learned but from the size of the deposit base at Bitstamp they clearly have not. A lot of Bitcoin users don't seem to be ready to be their own bank, yet still want to own some on the assumption everyone else either is or soon will be. So it's really only a matter of time until something goes wrong with some large bitbank again, either Bitstamp or Coinbase. Some days I wonder if Bitcoin will be killed off by people who just refuse to use it properly before it ever gets a chance to shine. The general public doesn't distinguish between Bitcoin users who deposit with a third party and the real Bitcoin users who don't. -- Put Bad Developers to Shame Dominate Development with Jenkins Continuous Integration Continuously Automate Build, Test Deployment Start a new project now. Try Jenkins in the cloud. http://p.sf.net/sfu/13600_Cloudbees_APR ___ Bitcoin-development mailing list Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development -- Put Bad Developers to Shame Dominate Development with Jenkins Continuous Integration Continuously Automate Build, Test Deployment Start a new project now. Try Jenkins in the cloud. http://p.sf.net/sfu/13600_Cloudbees_APR ___ Bitcoin-development mailing list Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development -- Troy Benjegerdes 'da hozer' ho...@hozed.org 7 elements earth::water::air::fire::mind::spirit::soulgrid.coop Never pick a fight with someone who buys ink by the barrel, nor try buy a hacker who makes money by the megahash -- Put Bad Developers to Shame Dominate Development with Jenkins Continuous Integration
Re: [Bitcoin-development] Why are we bleeding nodes?
You have to load headers sequantially to be able to connect them and determine the longest chain. Blocks can be loaded in random order once you have their order given by the headers. Computing the UTXO however will force you to at least temporarily store the blocks unless you have plenty of RAM. Regards, Tamas Blummer http://bitsofproof.com On 07.04.2014, at 21:30, Paul Lyon pml...@hotmail.ca wrote: I hope I'm not thread-jacking here, apologies if so, but that's the approach I've taken with the node I'm working on. Headers can be downloaded and stored in any order, it'll make sense of what the winning chain is. Blocks don't need to be downloaded in any particular order and they don't need to be saved to disk, the UTXO is fully self-contained. That way the concern of storing blocks for seeding (or not) is wholly separated from syncing the UTXO. This allows me to do the initial blockchain sync in ~6 hours when I use my SSD. I only need enough disk space to store the UTXO, and then whatever amount of block data the user would want to store for the health of the network. This project is a bitcoin learning exercise for me, so I can only hope I don't have any critical design flaws in there. :) From: ta...@bitsofproof.com Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2014 21:20:31 +0200 To: gmaxw...@gmail.com CC: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Why are we bleeding nodes? Once headers are loaded first there is no reason for sequential loading. Validation has to be sequantial, but that step can be deferred until the blocks before a point are loaded and continous. Tamas Blummer http://bitsofproof.com On 07.04.2014, at 21:03, Gregory Maxwell gmaxw...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 12:00 PM, Tamas Blummer ta...@bitsofproof.com wrote: therefore I guess it is more handy to return some bitmap of pruned/full blocks than ranges. A bitmap also means high overhead and— if it's used to advertise non-contiguous blocks— poor locality, since blocks are fetched sequentially. -- Put Bad Developers to Shame Dominate Development with Jenkins Continuous Integration Continuously Automate Build, Test Deployment Start a new project now. Try Jenkins in the cloud.http://p.sf.net/sfu/13600_Cloudbees ___ Bitcoin-development mailing list Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.nethttps://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development signature.asc Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail -- Put Bad Developers to Shame Dominate Development with Jenkins Continuous Integration Continuously Automate Build, Test Deployment Start a new project now. Try Jenkins in the cloud. http://p.sf.net/sfu/13600_Cloudbees___ Bitcoin-development mailing list Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
Re: [Bitcoin-development] Draft BIP for seamless website authentication using Bitcoin address
I have to play dissenter here again.. Using a bitcoin address as a persistent identity key is the first real-world use of Bitcoin that I can imagine will make it a 'killer app' that everyone and their grandma will want to use. If you think 'certificates' are a good solution, then there is some way in which we have dramatically divergent goals. I like distributed, decentralized systems in which anyone can download the code and be free to participate in the things they want to securely and reliably. As soon as I hear 'certificate', I see a system in which one must pay at toll to speak, and which puts the listeners at risk because a certificate issuer is such a high-value target for malicious attack. Self-signed certificates are great for techno-wizards, but grandma has no idea if the self-signed cert was signed by her grandson, or by the hacker trying to redirect her social security check. This is your bitcoin address, it's your money AND your key to log into your bank website securely, so don't lose it. If you want our address protection insurance service that will be $20 per month, and if you do lose it, we'll fix it. If you keep losing it, then your rates will go up, just like car insurance if you keep crashing On Fri, Apr 04, 2014 at 09:32:40AM -0400, Gavin Andresen wrote: Using a bitcoin address repeatedly is something we're trying to move away from. And using a bitcoin address as a persistent identity key feels like the wrong direction to me. Better to use something like client certificates, the FIDO alliance's (new!) specs: http://fidoalliance.org/specifications/download ... or Steve Gibson's proposed SQRL system: https://www.grc.com/sqrl/sqrl.htm If one of those systems gets critical mass and actually starts being successful, then I think it would make sense to specify a standard way of using a HD wallet's deterministic seed to derive a key used for the FIDO or SQRL systems. On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 9:22 AM, Eric Larchevêque ela...@gmail.com wrote: What I'm trying to achieve, is to have a very simple way of authenticating yourself with one Bitcoin address from your wallet. For most of the people using Bitcoin, their wallet is on their phone. The UX is clear and simple : 1. click on connect with Bitcoin (the audience is normal people) 2. flash the QRcode with your wallet (blockchain.info, mycelium, ...) 3. accept the authentication request (same style than OpenID or Facebook connect) 4. user is autologged and identified by the chosen Bitcoin public address It makes sense only if major wallets are supporting the protocol. If you need to install a plugin or download a third party software, no one will do it. I see only benefits for the entire ecosystem, and if I'm working on such a proposition it is because I really need this feature. Of course, it can be done without a BIP, I just need to convince wallet developpers one by one to implement the feature. But I thought it was much better to start the official way, so all wallet could easily find and implement the same authentication mechanism. Bitcoin and website authentication are unrelated problems I respectfully disagree. Many services require your Bitcoin address, and to do that they artificially request an email/password to store it. This is not about authentication as an identity (as I'm Eric Larcheveque), but as in I'm proving to you that I control this address. Without such a standard protocol, you could never envision a pure Bitcoin physical locker rental, or booking an hotel room via Bitcoin and opening the door through the paying address. Eric On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 3:08 PM, Mike Hearn m...@plan99.net wrote: This comes up every few months. I think the problem you are trying to solve is already solved by SSL client certificates, and if you want to help make them more widespread the programs you need to upgrade are web browsers and not Bitcoin wallets. There are certainly bits of infrastructure you could reuse here and there, like perhaps a TREZOR with a custom firmware extension for really advanced/keen users, but overall Bitcoin and website authentication are unrelated problems. On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 2:15 PM, Eric Larchevêque ela...@gmail.comwrote: Hello, I've written a draft BIP description of an authentication protocol based on Bitcoin public address. By authentication we mean to prove to a service/application that we control a specific Bitcoin address by signing a challenge, and that all related data and settings may securely be linked to our session. The aim is to greatly facilitate sign ups and logins to services and applications, improving the Bitcoin ecosystem as a whole. https://github.com/bitid/bitid/blob/master/BIP_draft.md Demo website : http://bitid-demo.herokuapp.com/ Classical password authentication is an insecure process that could be solved
Re: [Bitcoin-development] Why are we bleeding nodes?
Or have blocks distributed through pruned nodes as a DHT. 2014-04-07 20:13 GMT+01:00 Mark Friedenbach m...@monetize.io: On 04/07/2014 12:20 PM, Tamas Blummer wrote: Validation has to be sequantial, but that step can be deferred until the blocks before a point are loaded and continous. And how do you find those blocks? I have a suggestion: have nodes advertise which range of full blocks they possess, then you can perform synchronization from the adversed ranges! -- Put Bad Developers to Shame Dominate Development with Jenkins Continuous Integration Continuously Automate Build, Test Deployment Start a new project now. Try Jenkins in the cloud. http://p.sf.net/sfu/13600_Cloudbees ___ Bitcoin-development mailing list Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development -- Put Bad Developers to Shame Dominate Development with Jenkins Continuous Integration Continuously Automate Build, Test Deployment Start a new project now. Try Jenkins in the cloud. http://p.sf.net/sfu/13600_Cloudbees ___ Bitcoin-development mailing list Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
Re: [Bitcoin-development] Why are we bleeding nodes?
On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 8:50 PM, Tamas Blummer ta...@bitsofproof.com wrote: You have to load headers sequantially to be able to connect them and determine the longest chain. The isn't strictly true. If you are connected to a some honest nodes, then you could download portions of the chain and then connect the various sub-chains together. The protocol doesn't support it though. There is no system to ask for block headers for the main chain block with a given height, Finding one high bandwidth peer to download the entire header chain sequentially is pretty much forced. The client can switch if there is a timeout. Other peers could be used to parallel download the block chain while the main chain is downloading. Even if the header download stalled, it wouldn't be that big a deal. Blocks can be loaded in random order once you have their order given by the headers. Computing the UTXO however will force you to at least temporarily store the blocks unless you have plenty of RAM. You only need to store the UTXO set, rather than the entire block chain. It is possible to generate the UTXO set without doing any signature verification. A lightweight node could just verify the UTXO set and then do random signature verifications. The keeps disk space and CPU reasonably low. If an illegal transaction is added to be a block, then proof could be provided for the bad transaction. The only slightly difficult thing is confirming inflation. That can be checked on a block by block basis when downloading the entire block chain. Regards, Tamas Blummer http://bitsofproof.com http://bitsofproof.com On 07.04.2014, at 21:30, Paul Lyon pml...@hotmail.ca wrote: I hope I'm not thread-jacking here, apologies if so, but that's the approach I've taken with the node I'm working on. Headers can be downloaded and stored in any order, it'll make sense of what the winning chain is. Blocks don't need to be downloaded in any particular order and they don't need to be saved to disk, the UTXO is fully self-contained. That way the concern of storing blocks for seeding (or not) is wholly separated from syncing the UTXO. This allows me to do the initial blockchain sync in ~6 hours when I use my SSD. I only need enough disk space to store the UTXO, and then whatever amount of block data the user would want to store for the health of the network. This project is a bitcoin learning exercise for me, so I can only hope I don't have any critical design flaws in there. :) -- From: ta...@bitsofproof.com Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2014 21:20:31 +0200 To: gmaxw...@gmail.com CC: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Why are we bleeding nodes? Once headers are loaded first there is no reason for sequential loading. Validation has to be sequantial, but that step can be deferred until the blocks before a point are loaded and continous. Tamas Blummer http://bitsofproof.com On 07.04.2014, at 21:03, Gregory Maxwell gmaxw...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 12:00 PM, Tamas Blummer ta...@bitsofproof.com wrote: therefore I guess it is more handy to return some bitmap of pruned/full blocks than ranges. A bitmap also means high overhead and-- if it's used to advertise non-contiguous blocks-- poor locality, since blocks are fetched sequentially. -- Put Bad Developers to Shame Dominate Development with Jenkins Continuous Integration Continuously Automate Build, Test Deployment Start a new project now. Try Jenkins in the cloud.http://p.sf.net/sfu/13600_Cloudbees ___ Bitcoin-development mailing list Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development -- Put Bad Developers to Shame Dominate Development with Jenkins Continuous Integration Continuously Automate Build, Test Deployment Start a new project now. Try Jenkins in the cloud. http://p.sf.net/sfu/13600_Cloudbees ___ Bitcoin-development mailing list Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development -- Put Bad Developers to Shame Dominate Development with Jenkins Continuous Integration Continuously Automate Build, Test Deployment Start a new project now. Try Jenkins in the cloud. http://p.sf.net/sfu/13600_Cloudbees___ Bitcoin-development mailing list Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
Re: [Bitcoin-development] Draft BIP for seamless website authentication using Bitcoin address
2014-04-07 21:08 GMT+01:00 Troy Benjegerdes ho...@hozed.org: I have to play dissenter here again.. Using a bitcoin address as a persistent identity key is the first real-world use of Bitcoin that I can imagine will make it a 'killer app' that everyone and their grandma will want to use. I am of the same opinion, although i understand Gavin's point. Would the multisig seed work for this purpose? I have been toying with this idea and I think that for this BIP to make sense it would require a root key as your login. Then if you need to make transfers the system would request you to create and associate a new key to your account for each purchase (signing the new key with the root one for example). -- Put Bad Developers to Shame Dominate Development with Jenkins Continuous Integration Continuously Automate Build, Test Deployment Start a new project now. Try Jenkins in the cloud. http://p.sf.net/sfu/13600_Cloudbees ___ Bitcoin-development mailing list Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
Re: [Bitcoin-development] Why are we bleeding nodes?
On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 2:48 PM, Tier Nolan tier.no...@gmail.com wrote: Blocks can be loaded in random order once you have their order given by the headers. Computing the UTXO however will force you to at least temporarily store the blocks unless you have plenty of RAM. You only need to store the UTXO set, rather than the entire block chain. The comment was specifically in the context of an out of order fetch. Verification must be in order. If you have fetched blocks out of order you must preserve them at least long enough to reorder them. Thats all. -- Put Bad Developers to Shame Dominate Development with Jenkins Continuous Integration Continuously Automate Build, Test Deployment Start a new project now. Try Jenkins in the cloud. http://p.sf.net/sfu/13600_Cloudbees ___ Bitcoin-development mailing list Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
Re: [Bitcoin-development] Draft BIP for seamless website authentication using Bitcoin address
This is toying with the economics of cryptofinance in a way that needs to be understood before being put under consideration for implementation in Bitcoin. This is an opportunity for an altcoin to explore the implications of these proposals prior to changing the properties of an already precarious system. Eric Martindale Developer Evangelist, BitPay +1 (919) 374-2020 On Apr 7, 2014 2:55 PM, Ricardo Filipe ricardojdfil...@gmail.com wrote: 2014-04-07 21:08 GMT+01:00 Troy Benjegerdes ho...@hozed.org: I have to play dissenter here again.. Using a bitcoin address as a persistent identity key is the first real-world use of Bitcoin that I can imagine will make it a 'killer app' that everyone and their grandma will want to use. I am of the same opinion, although i understand Gavin's point. Would the multisig seed work for this purpose? I have been toying with this idea and I think that for this BIP to make sense it would require a root key as your login. Then if you need to make transfers the system would request you to create and associate a new key to your account for each purchase (signing the new key with the root one for example). -- Put Bad Developers to Shame Dominate Development with Jenkins Continuous Integration Continuously Automate Build, Test Deployment Start a new project now. Try Jenkins in the cloud. http://p.sf.net/sfu/13600_Cloudbees ___ Bitcoin-development mailing list Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development -- Put Bad Developers to Shame Dominate Development with Jenkins Continuous Integration Continuously Automate Build, Test Deployment Start a new project now. Try Jenkins in the cloud. http://p.sf.net/sfu/13600_Cloudbees___ Bitcoin-development mailing list Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
Re: [Bitcoin-development] Why are we bleeding nodes?
On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 10:55 PM, Paul Lyon pml...@hotmail.ca wrote: I actually ask for headers from each peer I'm connected to and then dump them into the backend to be sorted out.. is this abusive to the network? I think downloading from a subset of the peers and switching out any slow ones is a reasonable compromise. Once you have a chain, you can quickly check that all peers have the same main chain. Your backend system could have a method that gives you the hash of the last 10 headers on the longest chain it knows about. You can use the block locator hash system. This can be used with the getheaders message and if the new peer is on a different chain, then it will just send you the headers starting at the genesis block. If that happens, you need to download the entire chain from that peer and see if it is better than your current best. *From:* Tier Nolan tier.no...@gmail.com *Sent:* Monday, April 07, 2014 6:48 PM *To:* bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 8:50 PM, Tamas Blummer ta...@bitsofproof.com wrote: You have to load headers sequantially to be able to connect them and determine the longest chain. The isn't strictly true. If you are connected to a some honest nodes, then you could download portions of the chain and then connect the various sub-chains together. The protocol doesn't support it though. There is no system to ask for block headers for the main chain block with a given height, Finding one high bandwidth peer to download the entire header chain sequentially is pretty much forced. The client can switch if there is a timeout. Other peers could be used to parallel download the block chain while the main chain is downloading. Even if the header download stalled, it wouldn't be that big a deal. Blocks can be loaded in random order once you have their order given by the headers. Computing the UTXO however will force you to at least temporarily store the blocks unless you have plenty of RAM. You only need to store the UTXO set, rather than the entire block chain. It is possible to generate the UTXO set without doing any signature verification. A lightweight node could just verify the UTXO set and then do random signature verifications. The keeps disk space and CPU reasonably low. If an illegal transaction is added to be a block, then proof could be provided for the bad transaction. The only slightly difficult thing is confirming inflation. That can be checked on a block by block basis when downloading the entire block chain. Regards, Tamas Blummer http://bitsofproof.com http://bitsofproof.com On 07.04.2014, at 21:30, Paul Lyon pml...@hotmail.ca wrote: I hope I'm not thread-jacking here, apologies if so, but that's the approach I've taken with the node I'm working on. Headers can be downloaded and stored in any order, it'll make sense of what the winning chain is. Blocks don't need to be downloaded in any particular order and they don't need to be saved to disk, the UTXO is fully self-contained. That way the concern of storing blocks for seeding (or not) is wholly separated from syncing the UTXO. This allows me to do the initial blockchain sync in ~6 hours when I use my SSD. I only need enough disk space to store the UTXO, and then whatever amount of block data the user would want to store for the health of the network. This project is a bitcoin learning exercise for me, so I can only hope I don't have any critical design flaws in there. :) -- From: ta...@bitsofproof.com Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2014 21:20:31 +0200 To: gmaxw...@gmail.com CC: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Why are we bleeding nodes? Once headers are loaded first there is no reason for sequential loading. Validation has to be sequantial, but that step can be deferred until the blocks before a point are loaded and continous. Tamas Blummer http://bitsofproof.com On 07.04.2014, at 21:03, Gregory Maxwell gmaxw...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 12:00 PM, Tamas Blummer ta...@bitsofproof.com wrote: therefore I guess it is more handy to return some bitmap of pruned/full blocks than ranges. A bitmap also means high overhead and-- if it's used to advertise non-contiguous blocks-- poor locality, since blocks are fetched sequentially. -- Put Bad Developers to Shame Dominate Development with Jenkins Continuous Integration Continuously Automate Build, Test Deployment Start a new project now. Try Jenkins in the cloud.http://p.sf.net/sfu/13600_Cloudbees ___ Bitcoin-development mailing list Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development -- Put Bad Developers to Shame Dominate Development with Jenkins Continuous Integration
Re: [Bitcoin-development] Presenting a BIP for Shamir's Secret Sharing of Bitcoin private keys
I'd be fine with changing the key fingerprint algorithm to something else. Do you like CRC16? I like CRC16. Do you intend to use it in conjunction with a cryptographic hash? Regarding the choice of fields, any implementation of this BIP will need big integer arithmetic to do base-58 anyway. The operations required for SSS are nearly the same as for base-58 and can probably be done by the same subset of the chosen bignum library. So in fact using GF(2^8) will add complexity to both the BIP and its implementations. However, the maths in GF(2^8) is so simple that this additional complexity can be considered negligible. As a co-author of a bitcoin application running on a real microcontroller (not the sort of big-iron thing Trezor runs on), I was also going to implement my SSS over a 256-bit prime field. (I am not going into 512-bit master seeds at this time.) Uniform processing of secrets of any size (instead of using different primes for different cases) is a valid argument in favour of GF(2^8), though. I have no preference one way or another. -- Put Bad Developers to Shame Dominate Development with Jenkins Continuous Integration Continuously Automate Build, Test Deployment Start a new project now. Try Jenkins in the cloud. http://p.sf.net/sfu/13600_Cloudbees ___ Bitcoin-development mailing list Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
Re: [Bitcoin-development] Presenting a BIP for Shamir's Secret Sharing of Bitcoin private keys
On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 5:33 PM, Nikita Schmidt nik...@megiontechnologies.com wrote: Regarding the choice of fields, any implementation of this BIP will need big integer arithmetic to do base-58 anyway. Nah, it doesn't. E.g. https://gitorious.org/bitcoin/libblkmaker/source/eb33f9c8e441ffef457a79d76ceed1ea20ab3059:base58.c However, the maths in GF(2^8) is so simple that this additional complexity can be considered negligible. [...] Uniform processing of secrets of any size (instead of using different primes for different cases) is a valid argument in favour of GF(2^8), though. I have no preference one way or another. I think this is really one of the bigger selling points. -- Put Bad Developers to Shame Dominate Development with Jenkins Continuous Integration Continuously Automate Build, Test Deployment Start a new project now. Try Jenkins in the cloud. http://p.sf.net/sfu/13600_Cloudbees ___ Bitcoin-development mailing list Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
Re: [Bitcoin-development] Presenting a BIP for Shamir's Secret Sharing of Bitcoin private keys
On Monday, 7 April 2014, at 5:38 pm, Gregory Maxwell wrote: On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 5:33 PM, Nikita Schmidt nik...@megiontechnologies.com wrote: Regarding the choice of fields, any implementation of this BIP will need big integer arithmetic to do base-58 anyway. Nah, it doesn't. E.g. https://gitorious.org/bitcoin/libblkmaker/source/eb33f9c8e441ffef457a79d76ceed1ea20ab3059:base58.c That only *decodes* Base58Check. It has no encode function, which would require biginteger division. -- Put Bad Developers to Shame Dominate Development with Jenkins Continuous Integration Continuously Automate Build, Test Deployment Start a new project now. Try Jenkins in the cloud. http://p.sf.net/sfu/13600_Cloudbees ___ Bitcoin-development mailing list Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
Re: [Bitcoin-development] Presenting a BIP for Shamir's Secret Sharing of Bitcoin private keys
On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 6:46 PM, Matt Whitlock b...@mattwhitlock.name wrote: On Monday, 7 April 2014, at 5:38 pm, Gregory Maxwell wrote: On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 5:33 PM, Nikita Schmidt nik...@megiontechnologies.com wrote: Regarding the choice of fields, any implementation of this BIP will need big integer arithmetic to do base-58 anyway. Nah, it doesn't. E.g. https://gitorious.org/bitcoin/libblkmaker/source/eb33f9c8e441ffef457a79d76ceed1ea20ab3059:base58.c That only *decodes* Base58Check. It has no encode function, which would require biginteger division. Yes thats only a decode but the same process (long division with manual carries) works just fine the other way. There is absolutely no need to use big integers for this. -- Put Bad Developers to Shame Dominate Development with Jenkins Continuous Integration Continuously Automate Build, Test Deployment Start a new project now. Try Jenkins in the cloud. http://p.sf.net/sfu/13600_Cloudbees ___ Bitcoin-development mailing list Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
Re: [Bitcoin-development] Why are we bleeding nodes?
Multi-sig requires infrastructure. It isn't a magic wand that we can wave to make everyone secure. The protocols and techniques necessary don't exist yet, and apparently no one has much of an incentive to create them. I mean no offense, and I don't mean to pick on you. Your post stuck out while I was reading. Secure multi-sig is what we all want, but wanting apparently isn't enough to make it happen. Other random notes from reading this 50+ post thread: Perhaps we should have a config flag to prevent a node from serving IBD to new nodes. IBD crushes marginal machines, particularly those with spinning disks. This has been extensively discussed elsewhere. The ideal IBD hosts are serving the blockchain out of a RAM disk. Is there any interest in setting up a network of volunteers to host expensive servers with fast connections? It doesn't look too terribly difficult to figure out when a node has stopped asking for blocks in bulk, so we could add another config flag to eject nodes once they are done booting. Even ignoring IBD, I think that we are gradually outgrowing cheapass hosting options. Personally, I long ago gave up on answering forum questions about running nodes on virtual servers and VPSs. It is certainly still possible to run bitcoind on small boxes, but it isn't trivial any more. (Anyone running on less than my Athlon XP 1800+ with 896 MB RAM?) If we want those nodes back, we need to optimize the hell out of the memory use, and even that might not be enough. Eric Martindale wrote: We need to make it so mind-numbingly simple to run Bitcoin correctly that the average user doesn't find reasons to do so in the course of normal use. Right now, Coinbase and Bitstamp are winning in the user experience battle, which technically endanger the user, and by proxy the Bitcoin network. Multi-sig as a default is a start. It won't succeed unless the user experience is simply better than trusted third parties, but we need to start the education process with the very basic fundamental: trusting a third-party with full access to your Bitcoin is just replacing one centralized banking system with another. -- Put Bad Developers to Shame Dominate Development with Jenkins Continuous Integration Continuously Automate Build, Test Deployment Start a new project now. Try Jenkins in the cloud. http://p.sf.net/sfu/13600_Cloudbees ___ Bitcoin-development mailing list Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
Re: [Bitcoin-development] Draft BIP for seamless website authentication using Bitcoin address
On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 10:56 AM, Eric Larchevêque ela...@gmail.com wrote: Yes, but no one will ever install a plug in. This is quite true. I said the same about KryptoKit. Incredibly cool to do bitcoin + PGP in client... but ultimately plugins reach 0.01% of the user population. -- Jeff Garzik Bitcoin core developer and open source evangelist BitPay, Inc. https://bitpay.com/ -- Put Bad Developers to Shame Dominate Development with Jenkins Continuous Integration Continuously Automate Build, Test Deployment Start a new project now. Try Jenkins in the cloud. http://p.sf.net/sfu/13600_Cloudbees ___ Bitcoin-development mailing list Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
Re: [Bitcoin-development] Why are we bleeding nodes?
Being Mr. Torrent, I've held open the 80% serious suggestion to simply refuse to serve blocks older than X (3 months?). That forces download by other means (presumably torrent). I do not feel it is productive for any nodes on the network to waste time/bandwidth/etc. serving static, ancient data. There remain, of course, issues of older nodes and getting the word out that prevents this switch from being flipped on tomorrow. On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 2:49 PM, Gregory Maxwell gmaxw...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 11:35 AM, Tamas Blummer ta...@bitsofproof.com wrote: BTW, did we already agree on the service bits for an archive node? I'm still very concerned that a binary archive bit will cause extreme load hot-spotting and the kind of binary Use lots of resources YES or NO I think we're currently suffering some from, but at that point enshrined in the protocol. It would be much better to extend the addr messages so that nodes can indicate a range or two of blocks that they're serving, so that all nodes can contribute fractionally according to their means. E.g. if you want to offer up 8 GB of distributed storage and contribute to the availability of the blockchain, without having to swollow the whole 20, 30, 40 ... gigabyte pill. Already we need that kind of distributed storage for the most recent blocks to prevent extreme bandwidth load on archives, so extending it to arbitrary ranges is only more complicated because there is currently no room to signal it. -- Put Bad Developers to Shame Dominate Development with Jenkins Continuous Integration Continuously Automate Build, Test Deployment Start a new project now. Try Jenkins in the cloud. http://p.sf.net/sfu/13600_Cloudbees ___ Bitcoin-development mailing list Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development -- Jeff Garzik Bitcoin core developer and open source evangelist BitPay, Inc. https://bitpay.com/ -- Put Bad Developers to Shame Dominate Development with Jenkins Continuous Integration Continuously Automate Build, Test Deployment Start a new project now. Try Jenkins in the cloud. http://p.sf.net/sfu/13600_Cloudbees ___ Bitcoin-development mailing list Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development