On Saturday, March 23, 2013 10:42:26 AM Randy Willis wrote:
Introducing super-nodes with thousands of connected peers can greatly help
here.
UDP is connectionless.
I would hope any UDP bitcoin protocol doesn't try to emulate a connection. :/
Luke
On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 10:52 AM, Luke-Jr l...@dashjr.org wrote:
On Saturday, March 23, 2013 10:42:26 AM Randy Willis wrote:
Introducing super-nodes with thousands of connected peers can greatly help
here.
UDP is connectionless.
I would hope any UDP bitcoin protocol doesn't try to emulate a
On Saturday, March 23, 2013 5:28:55 PM Jeff Garzik wrote:
On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 1:09 PM, Luke-Jr l...@dashjr.org wrote:
I don't think anyone is mining using bitcoind 0.7 or later?
slush, BTC Guild, ozcoin too I think, several others.
Not for producing coinbases (where BIP 34 is
On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 1:43 PM, Luke-Jr l...@dashjr.org wrote:
On Saturday, March 23, 2013 5:28:55 PM Jeff Garzik wrote:
On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 1:09 PM, Luke-Jr l...@dashjr.org wrote:
I don't think anyone is mining using bitcoind 0.7 or later?
slush, BTC Guild, ozcoin too I think, several
On Saturday, March 23, 2013 5:47:46 PM Jeff Garzik wrote:
On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 1:43 PM, Luke-Jr l...@dashjr.org wrote:
On Saturday, March 23, 2013 5:28:55 PM Jeff Garzik wrote:
On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 1:09 PM, Luke-Jr l...@dashjr.org wrote:
I don't think anyone is mining using bitcoind
On Saturday, March 23, 2013 6:21:32 PM Jeff Garzik wrote:
On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 1:51 PM, Luke-Jr l...@dashjr.org wrote:
bitcoind is nowhere in the implementation of the miner end of BIP 34.
Again, not strictly true.
bitcoind's 'getblocktemplate' RPC call used by some supplies the block
On 03/23/2013 11:24 AM, Jeff Garzik wrote:
On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 10:52 AM, Luke-Jr l...@dashjr.org wrote:
On Saturday, March 23, 2013 10:42:26 AM Randy Willis wrote:
Introducing super-nodes with thousands of connected peers can greatly help
here.
UDP is connectionless.
I would hope any
If you're considering a datagram protocol, you might be interested in some
more modern alternatives to UDP:
UDT: Breaking the Data Transfer Bottleneck
http://udt.sourceforge.net/
Stream Control Transmission Protocol
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stream_Control_Transmission_Protocol
On Sat, Mar
My first concern was that I and about everyone else only has TCP/UDP
port forwarding, but at least for the first:
UDT uses UDP to transfer bulk data with its own reliability control and
congestion control mechanisms. Multiple UDT flows can share a single UDP
port, thus a firewall can open only
On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 5:57 PM, Jay F j...@outlook.com wrote:
My first concern was that I and about everyone else only has TCP/UDP
port forwarding,
You tunnel it!
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-tuexen-tsvwg-sctp-dtls-encaps-00
You could do worse to have a data stream that looks like WEBRTC
On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 9:22 PM, Gregory Maxwell gmaxw...@gmail.com wrote:
In some ways SCTP is a pretty optimal transport for Bitcoin like messaging.
Darn near everything can be shoehorned into a message So
absolutely agreed... in theory. Been an SCTP fan for years.
Firewall practices tend
Nearly all of these new(er) user-mode transports run over UDP, so you can
hole-punch and port forward just the same. Some which don't can
nevertheless be tunneled, to the same effect.
Ultimately I don't have any skin in this game though. Just trying to save
someone from reinventing a perfectly
12 matches
Mail list logo
