{"type":"rich","version":"1.0","author_name":"npub17ty4mumkv43w8wtt0xsz2jypck0gvw0j8xrcg6tpea25z2nh7meqf4qgyd","author_url":"https://nostr.ae/npub17ty4mumkv43w8wtt0xsz2jypck0gvw0j8xrcg6tpea25z2nh7meqf4qgyd","provider_name":"njump","provider_url":"https://nostr.ae","html":"📅 Original date posted:2014-04-10\n📝 Original message:I tend to agree with slush here - counting the IPs in addr broadcasts often\ngives a number like 100,000 vs just 10,000 for actually reachable nodes (or\nless). It seems like optimising the NAT tunneling code would help. Starting\nby adding more diagnostic stuff to the GUI. STUN support may also help.\n\nThe main constraint with home devices is not IMHO their actual power but\nrather that a lot of people no longer keep computers switched on all the\ntime. If you don't do that then spv with bundled Core can't help your\nsecurity because the spv wallet would always be syncing from the p2p\nnetwork for performance reasons.\nOn 9 Apr 2014 22:13, \"slush\" \u003cslush at centrum.cz\u003e wrote:\n\n\u003e I believe there're plenty bitcoind instances running, but they don't have\n\u003e configured port forwarding properly.There's uPNP support in bitcoind, but\n\u003e it works only on simple setups.\n\u003e\n\u003e Maybe there're some not yet considered way how to expose these *existing*\n\u003e instances to Internet, to strenghten the network. Maybe just self-test\n\u003e indicating the node is not reachable from outside (together with short\n\u003e howto like in some torrent clients).\n\u003e\n\u003e These days IPv6 is slowly deploying to server environments, but maybe\n\u003e there's some simple way how to bundle ipv6 tunnelling into bitcoind so any\n\u003e instance will become ipv6-reachable automatically?\n\u003e\n\u003e Maybe there're other ideas how to improve current situation without needs\n\u003e of reworking the architecture.\n\u003e\n\u003e Marek\n\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 9:33 PM, Gregory Maxwell \u003cgmaxwell at gmail.com\u003ewrote:\n\u003e\n\u003e\u003e On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 11:58 AM, Justus Ranvier \u003cjustusranvier at gmail.com\u003e\n\u003e\u003e wrote:\n\u003e\u003e \u003e Anyone reading the archives of the list will see about triple the\n\u003e\u003e \u003e number of people independently confirming the resource usage problem\n\u003e\u003e \u003e than they will see denying it, so I'm not particularly worried.\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e The list has open membership, there is no particular qualification or\n\u003e\u003e background required to post here. Optimal use of an information source\n\u003e\u003e requires critical reading and understanding the limitations of the\n\u003e\u003e medium. Counting comments is usually not a great way to assess\n\u003e\u003e technical considerations on an open public forum.  Doubly so because\n\u003e\u003e those comments were not actually talking about the same thing I am\n\u003e\u003e talking about.\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e Existing implementations are inefficient in many known ways (and, no\n\u003e\u003e doubt, some unknown ones). This list is about developing protocol and\n\u003e\u003e implementations including improving their efficiency.  When talking\n\u003e\u003e about incentives the costs you need to consider are the costs of the\n\u003e\u003e best realistic option.  As far as I know there is no doubt from anyone\n\u003e\u003e technically experienced that under the current network rules full\n\u003e\u003e nodes can be operated with vastly less resources than current\n\u003e\u003e implementations use, it's just a question of the relatively modest\n\u003e\u003e implementation improvements.\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e When you argue that Bitcoin doesn't have the right incentives (and\n\u003e\u003e thus something??) I retort that the actual resource _requirements_ are\n\u003e\u003e for the protocol very low. I gave specific example numbers to enable\n\u003e\u003e correction or clarification if I've said something wrong or\n\u003e\u003e controversial. Pointing out that existing implementations are not that\n\u003e\u003e currently as efficient as the underlying requirements and that some\n\u003e\u003e large number of users do not like the efficiency of existing\n\u003e\u003e implementations doesn't tell me anything I disagree with or didn't\n\u003e\u003e already know. Whats being discussed around here contributes to\n\u003e\u003e prioritizing improvements over the existing implementations.\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e I hope this clarifies something.\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e ------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\u003e\u003e Put Bad Developers to Shame\n\u003e\u003e Dominate Development with Jenkins Continuous Integration\n\u003e\u003e Continuously Automate Build, Test \u0026 Deployment\n\u003e\u003e Start a new project now. Try Jenkins in the cloud.\n\u003e\u003e http://p.sf.net/sfu/13600_Cloudbees\n\u003e\u003e _______________________________________________\n\u003e\u003e Bitcoin-development mailing list\n\u003e\u003e Bitcoin-development at lists.sourceforge.net\n\u003e\u003e https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e ------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\u003e Put Bad Developers to Shame\n\u003e Dominate Development with Jenkins Continuous Integration\n\u003e Continuously Automate Build, Test \u0026 Deployment\n\u003e Start a new project now. Try Jenkins in the cloud.\n\u003e http://p.sf.net/sfu/13600_Cloudbees\n\u003e _______________________________________________\n\u003e Bitcoin-development mailing list\n\u003e Bitcoin-development at lists.sourceforge.net\n\u003e https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development\n\u003e\n\u003e\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20140410/0246775b/attachment.html\u003e"}