📅 Original date posted:2017-03-29
📝 Original message:Well it's not going off-topic since the btc folks need now to find a way
to counter the attack
The disk space story is know to be a non issue, because encouraging
people to run nodes while they don't know how to dedicate the right
storage space that is trivial and not expensive to get today is just
stupid, they should not try to run full nodes, and no I tested with non
SSD drives, I was more wondering about cpu and bandwidth use, but did
not notice any impact, just stopped because a repeated sw bug or drive
issue desynched the chain and bitcoin-qt was trying to reload it from
the begining each time, which in my case was taking 10 days despite of
good bandwidth (which would allow me to torrent the entire chain + state
in less than 20 hours), so I stopped after the 3rd crash, setting up a
full node on my servers is still in the todo list (very low priority for
the reasons already explained)
Running a prune node implies first to setup a full node, so the same
problematic applies and then the advantage of pruning is not really
obvious, I don't know what's the strange story about "archival nodes", I
proposed something else
Back to the topic, the conclusion is that this is not difficult at all
for many people to run efficient full nodes, ideally the community
should promote this, seed a torrent with a recent state, implement a
patch to defeat BU plans and have everybody upgrade
But of course this will not happen
Le 29/03/2017 à 18:41, Andrew Johnson a écrit :
> I believe that as we continue to add users to the system by scaling
> capacity that we will see more new nodes appear, but I'm at a bit of a
> loss as to how to empirically prove it.
>
> I do see your point on increasing load on archival nodes, but the
> majority of that load is going to come from new nodes coming online,
> they're the only ones going after very old blocks. I could see that
> as a potential attack vector, overwhelm the archival nodes by spinning
> up new nodes constantly, therefore making it difficult for a "real"
> new node to get up to speed in a reasonable amount of time.
>
> Perhaps the answer there would be a way to pay an archival node a
> small amount of bitcoin in order to retrieve blocks older than a
> certain cutoff? Include an IP address for the node asking for the
> data as metadata in the transaction... Archival nodes could set and
> publish their own policy, let the market decide what those older
> blocks are worth. Would also help to incentivize running archival
> node, which we do need. Of course, this isn't very user friendly.
>
> We can take this to bitcoin-discuss, if we're getting too far off topic.
>
>
> On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 11:25 AM David Vorick <david.vorick at gmail.com
> <mailto:david.vorick at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>
> On Mar 29, 2017 12:20 PM, "Andrew Johnson"
> <andrew.johnson83 at gmail.com <mailto:andrew.johnson83 at gmail.com>>
> wrote:
>
> What's stopping these users from running a pruned node? Not
> every node needs to store a complete copy of the blockchain.
>
>
> Pruned nodes are not the default configuration, if it was the
> default configuration then I think you would see far more users
> running a pruned node.
>
> But that would also substantially increase the burden on archive
> nodes.
>
>
> Further discussion about disk space requirements should be taken
> to another thread.
>
>
> --
> Andrew Johnson
>
--
Zcash wallets made simple: https://github.com/Ayms/zcash-wallets
Bitcoin wallets made simple: https://github.com/Ayms/bitcoin-wallets
Get the torrent dynamic blocklist: http://peersm.com/getblocklist
Check the 10 M passwords list: http://peersm.com/findmyass
Anti-spies and private torrents, dynamic blocklist: http://torrent-live.org
Peersm : http://www.peersm.com
torrent-live: https://github.com/Ayms/torrent-live
node-Tor : https://www.github.com/Ayms/node-Tor
GitHub : https://www.github.com/Ayms
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20170329/0b5f83cc/attachment.html>;
Aymeric Vitte [ARCHIVE] /
npub15f…g5grz
2023-06-07 17:58:18
in reply to nevent1q…aget
Author Public Key
npub15fc36esk6dy2x4ptk2ner209rl9u0d736gr99edtu9knu9uny80s4g5grzPublished at
2023-06-07 17:58:18Event JSON
{
"id": "7e961df56f1ccd83f8c5792511dfd0223cde211be9c4baf17bdc70b6d4eee10a",
"pubkey": "a2711d6616d348a3542bb2a791a9e51fcbc7b7d1d20652e5abe16d3e179321df",
"created_at": 1686160698,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"f66fb8ea0b053d3b896ce377aea38775ffc7975376c3ee96291861cf920b456b",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"388ba9762509ec648bc4c505c808cc759dfd18a5d836392284f0a643b719aa17",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"fa69268781de33f116b423cab175d976820851d6b074d0873c920c6983eb4713"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2017-03-29\n📝 Original message:Well it's not going off-topic since the btc folks need now to find a way\nto counter the attack\n\nThe disk space story is know to be a non issue, because encouraging\npeople to run nodes while they don't know how to dedicate the right\nstorage space that is trivial and not expensive to get today is just\nstupid, they should not try to run full nodes, and no I tested with non\nSSD drives, I was more wondering about cpu and bandwidth use, but did\nnot notice any impact, just stopped because a repeated sw bug or drive\nissue desynched the chain and bitcoin-qt was trying to reload it from\nthe begining each time, which in my case was taking 10 days despite of\ngood bandwidth (which would allow me to torrent the entire chain + state\nin less than 20 hours), so I stopped after the 3rd crash, setting up a\nfull node on my servers is still in the todo list (very low priority for\nthe reasons already explained)\n\nRunning a prune node implies first to setup a full node, so the same\nproblematic applies and then the advantage of pruning is not really\nobvious, I don't know what's the strange story about \"archival nodes\", I\nproposed something else\n\nBack to the topic, the conclusion is that this is not difficult at all\nfor many people to run efficient full nodes, ideally the community\nshould promote this, seed a torrent with a recent state, implement a\npatch to defeat BU plans and have everybody upgrade\n\nBut of course this will not happen\n\n\nLe 29/03/2017 à 18:41, Andrew Johnson a écrit :\n\u003e I believe that as we continue to add users to the system by scaling\n\u003e capacity that we will see more new nodes appear, but I'm at a bit of a\n\u003e loss as to how to empirically prove it. \n\u003e\n\u003e I do see your point on increasing load on archival nodes, but the\n\u003e majority of that load is going to come from new nodes coming online,\n\u003e they're the only ones going after very old blocks. I could see that\n\u003e as a potential attack vector, overwhelm the archival nodes by spinning\n\u003e up new nodes constantly, therefore making it difficult for a \"real\"\n\u003e new node to get up to speed in a reasonable amount of time. \n\u003e\n\u003e Perhaps the answer there would be a way to pay an archival node a\n\u003e small amount of bitcoin in order to retrieve blocks older than a\n\u003e certain cutoff? Include an IP address for the node asking for the\n\u003e data as metadata in the transaction... Archival nodes could set and\n\u003e publish their own policy, let the market decide what those older\n\u003e blocks are worth. Would also help to incentivize running archival\n\u003e node, which we do need. Of course, this isn't very user friendly. \n\u003e\n\u003e We can take this to bitcoin-discuss, if we're getting too far off topic.\n\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 11:25 AM David Vorick \u003cdavid.vorick at gmail.com\n\u003e \u003cmailto:david.vorick at gmail.com\u003e\u003e wrote:\n\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e On Mar 29, 2017 12:20 PM, \"Andrew Johnson\"\n\u003e \u003candrew.johnson83 at gmail.com \u003cmailto:andrew.johnson83 at gmail.com\u003e\u003e\n\u003e wrote:\n\u003e\n\u003e What's stopping these users from running a pruned node? Not\n\u003e every node needs to store a complete copy of the blockchain. \n\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e Pruned nodes are not the default configuration, if it was the\n\u003e default configuration then I think you would see far more users\n\u003e running a pruned node.\n\u003e\n\u003e But that would also substantially increase the burden on archive\n\u003e nodes.\n\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e Further discussion about disk space requirements should be taken\n\u003e to another thread.\n\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e -- \n\u003e Andrew Johnson\n\u003e\n\n-- \nZcash wallets made simple: https://github.com/Ayms/zcash-wallets\nBitcoin wallets made simple: https://github.com/Ayms/bitcoin-wallets\nGet the torrent dynamic blocklist: http://peersm.com/getblocklist\nCheck the 10 M passwords list: http://peersm.com/findmyass\nAnti-spies and private torrents, dynamic blocklist: http://torrent-live.org\nPeersm : http://www.peersm.com\ntorrent-live: https://github.com/Ayms/torrent-live\nnode-Tor : https://www.github.com/Ayms/node-Tor\nGitHub : https://www.github.com/Ayms\n\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20170329/0b5f83cc/attachment.html\u003e",
"sig": "5d1bc420826cb6df4db150a8e52bb0bd989670ef07dfc2d5a743e7baa5a68a66701bf76a977700682560782afb03e3b21f7dc1f606dc41429f8ef15116780bd5"
}