đ
Original date posted:2013-06-28
đ Original message:-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256
On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 6:41 PM, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 11:04 AM, Luke-Jr <luke at dashjr.org> wrote:
>> On Thursday, June 27, 2013 5:30:21 PM Jeff Garzik wrote:
>>> * Very real possibility of an overall net reduction of full nodes on P2P
>>> network
>> Even a reduction of *nodes at all*, as I've never seen a listening bitcoinj or
>> MultiBit node. :/
>> Jim, will MultiBit be adding p2p listening support?
>
> Without validation listening isn't currently very useful. :( Maybe it
> could be somewhat more with some protocol additions.
Possible non-validation data that can be usefully propagated:
1) Block headers.
2) *Confirmed* transactions linked to an aformentioned blockheader.
3) Proof-of-work/sacrifice limited P2P messages, for instance to
co-ordinate trust-free-mixes or act as a communication channel for
micropayment channels.
4) With UTXO existance proof support propagate transactions
accompanied by proofs that all inputs exist. This would also allow for
implementation of Peter's low-bandwidth decentralized P2Pool proposal.
5) UTXO fraud proofs. (one day)
Strictly speaking #2 doesn't even need the protocol to be changed
actually as it can be handled entirely within the existing INV/getdata
mechanism. Sure someone could throw away a lot of hashing power and
get an invalid block propagated, but really so what? SPV nodes should
always take confirmations with a grain of salt anyway.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJRzWx8AAoJEEWCsU4mNhiPlTkIAJKzFsT65o6LoU70hbaBsu3g
aBdjYZSCnJ9+qWI2tqqUBedq2etbt71hAfWNnTXvFus+0iVB1HWJClW155319vuH
Xi1m9G3O0NzX1d+cssMPxFBHsl4Rz6XYICrYyVEe2X554Zawdg6I53+1INHRfsBT
1vmq5Bxgopt0Tk9Vf8HNdRt/IXZJaPYm1PEzJHFppuOvl5+Fpypy3t/QXdsP8puP
LnRdL7Bxfu3BSWrSRZo7l5Fpww3Y/vdNYCL4jDD/ME+36wi4CUM3psL8lsk81lB4
3t/ytF4y/adT/dEEtMj7BGWS0TIMMH0NyeCjqBdStiQsVfoowLCVfpuDzouZ6yY=
=TI1m
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
John Dillon [ARCHIVE] /
npub15zâŚkn0zr
2023-06-07 15:04:02
in reply to nevent1qâŚ69y6
Author Public Key
npub15z6e9t07ugx267aj3s3c487pln852ydytzlgu0vkkqxfznyvx4jq4kn0zrPublished at
2023-06-07 15:04:02Event JSON
{
"id": "0a38dc1353022bd2799723a1d93956dd3b1b6464e0f50d61111450a0c1e92ae3",
"pubkey": "a0b592adfee20cad7bb28c238a9fc1fccf4511a458be8e3d96b00c914c8c3564",
"created_at": 1686150242,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"5ec662796ac6f7c2f8d4618ee0bafe23cd8003de44ad7e1121634fb73b588358",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"08bcca8db4cb520dd7dd77e2b255757f765ff82c15ce87dd7c34ab57f703b1af",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"91f69cdafb42e79d05623057c68f017374e590d6d540d9c60e22a6cae85cfe5b"
]
],
"content": "đ
Original date posted:2013-06-28\nđ Original message:-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----\nHash: SHA256\n\nOn Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 6:41 PM, Gregory Maxwell \u003cgmaxwell at gmail.com\u003e wrote:\n\u003e On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 11:04 AM, Luke-Jr \u003cluke at dashjr.org\u003e wrote:\n\u003e\u003e On Thursday, June 27, 2013 5:30:21 PM Jeff Garzik wrote:\n\u003e\u003e\u003e * Very real possibility of an overall net reduction of full nodes on P2P\n\u003e\u003e\u003e network\n\u003e\u003e Even a reduction of *nodes at all*, as I've never seen a listening bitcoinj or\n\u003e\u003e MultiBit node. :/\n\u003e\u003e Jim, will MultiBit be adding p2p listening support?\n\u003e\n\u003e Without validation listening isn't currently very useful. :( Maybe it\n\u003e could be somewhat more with some protocol additions.\n\nPossible non-validation data that can be usefully propagated:\n\n1) Block headers.\n\n2) *Confirmed* transactions linked to an aformentioned blockheader.\n\n3) Proof-of-work/sacrifice limited P2P messages, for instance to\nco-ordinate trust-free-mixes or act as a communication channel for\nmicropayment channels.\n\n4) With UTXO existance proof support propagate transactions\naccompanied by proofs that all inputs exist. This would also allow for\nimplementation of Peter's low-bandwidth decentralized P2Pool proposal.\n\n5) UTXO fraud proofs. (one day)\n\n\nStrictly speaking #2 doesn't even need the protocol to be changed\nactually as it can be handled entirely within the existing INV/getdata\nmechanism. Sure someone could throw away a lot of hashing power and\nget an invalid block propagated, but really so what? SPV nodes should\nalways take confirmations with a grain of salt anyway.\n-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----\nVersion: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)\n\niQEcBAEBCAAGBQJRzWx8AAoJEEWCsU4mNhiPlTkIAJKzFsT65o6LoU70hbaBsu3g\naBdjYZSCnJ9+qWI2tqqUBedq2etbt71hAfWNnTXvFus+0iVB1HWJClW155319vuH\nXi1m9G3O0NzX1d+cssMPxFBHsl4Rz6XYICrYyVEe2X554Zawdg6I53+1INHRfsBT\n1vmq5Bxgopt0Tk9Vf8HNdRt/IXZJaPYm1PEzJHFppuOvl5+Fpypy3t/QXdsP8puP\nLnRdL7Bxfu3BSWrSRZo7l5Fpww3Y/vdNYCL4jDD/ME+36wi4CUM3psL8lsk81lB4\n3t/ytF4y/adT/dEEtMj7BGWS0TIMMH0NyeCjqBdStiQsVfoowLCVfpuDzouZ6yY=\n=TI1m\n-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----",
"sig": "451ad70b830fb577e5cfe794f8777e8b044c21971eead28c4ef83a3bb4c554ba316d12933ca6df2c6d6419215d092929efc54bd4ccc048221c8fc03dcd5e00c9"
}