<oembed><type>rich</type><version>1.0</version><author_name>npub17ty4mumkv43w8wtt0xsz2jypck0gvw0j8xrcg6tpea25z2nh7meqf4qgyd</author_name><author_url>https://nostr.ae/npub17ty4mumkv43w8wtt0xsz2jypck0gvw0j8xrcg6tpea25z2nh7meqf4qgyd</author_url><provider_name>njump</provider_name><provider_url>https://nostr.ae</provider_url><html>📅 Original date posted:2014-04-10&#xA;📝 Original message:I tend to agree with slush here - counting the IPs in addr broadcasts often&#xA;gives a number like 100,000 vs just 10,000 for actually reachable nodes (or&#xA;less). It seems like optimising the NAT tunneling code would help. Starting&#xA;by adding more diagnostic stuff to the GUI. STUN support may also help.&#xA;&#xA;The main constraint with home devices is not IMHO their actual power but&#xA;rather that a lot of people no longer keep computers switched on all the&#xA;time. If you don&#39;t do that then spv with bundled Core can&#39;t help your&#xA;security because the spv wallet would always be syncing from the p2p&#xA;network for performance reasons.&#xA;On 9 Apr 2014 22:13, &#34;slush&#34; &lt;slush at centrum.cz&gt; wrote:&#xA;&#xA;&gt; I believe there&#39;re plenty bitcoind instances running, but they don&#39;t have&#xA;&gt; configured port forwarding properly.There&#39;s uPNP support in bitcoind, but&#xA;&gt; it works only on simple setups.&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; Maybe there&#39;re some not yet considered way how to expose these *existing*&#xA;&gt; instances to Internet, to strenghten the network. Maybe just self-test&#xA;&gt; indicating the node is not reachable from outside (together with short&#xA;&gt; howto like in some torrent clients).&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; These days IPv6 is slowly deploying to server environments, but maybe&#xA;&gt; there&#39;s some simple way how to bundle ipv6 tunnelling into bitcoind so any&#xA;&gt; instance will become ipv6-reachable automatically?&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; Maybe there&#39;re other ideas how to improve current situation without needs&#xA;&gt; of reworking the architecture.&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; Marek&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 9:33 PM, Gregory Maxwell &lt;gmaxwell at gmail.com&gt;wrote:&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt;&gt; On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 11:58 AM, Justus Ranvier &lt;justusranvier at gmail.com&gt;&#xA;&gt;&gt; wrote:&#xA;&gt;&gt; &gt; Anyone reading the archives of the list will see about triple the&#xA;&gt;&gt; &gt; number of people independently confirming the resource usage problem&#xA;&gt;&gt; &gt; than they will see denying it, so I&#39;m not particularly worried.&#xA;&gt;&gt;&#xA;&gt;&gt; The list has open membership, there is no particular qualification or&#xA;&gt;&gt; background required to post here. Optimal use of an information source&#xA;&gt;&gt; requires critical reading and understanding the limitations of the&#xA;&gt;&gt; medium. Counting comments is usually not a great way to assess&#xA;&gt;&gt; technical considerations on an open public forum.  Doubly so because&#xA;&gt;&gt; those comments were not actually talking about the same thing I am&#xA;&gt;&gt; talking about.&#xA;&gt;&gt;&#xA;&gt;&gt; Existing implementations are inefficient in many known ways (and, no&#xA;&gt;&gt; doubt, some unknown ones). This list is about developing protocol and&#xA;&gt;&gt; implementations including improving their efficiency.  When talking&#xA;&gt;&gt; about incentives the costs you need to consider are the costs of the&#xA;&gt;&gt; best realistic option.  As far as I know there is no doubt from anyone&#xA;&gt;&gt; technically experienced that under the current network rules full&#xA;&gt;&gt; nodes can be operated with vastly less resources than current&#xA;&gt;&gt; implementations use, it&#39;s just a question of the relatively modest&#xA;&gt;&gt; implementation improvements.&#xA;&gt;&gt;&#xA;&gt;&gt; When you argue that Bitcoin doesn&#39;t have the right incentives (and&#xA;&gt;&gt; thus something??) I retort that the actual resource _requirements_ are&#xA;&gt;&gt; for the protocol very low. I gave specific example numbers to enable&#xA;&gt;&gt; correction or clarification if I&#39;ve said something wrong or&#xA;&gt;&gt; controversial. Pointing out that existing implementations are not that&#xA;&gt;&gt; currently as efficient as the underlying requirements and that some&#xA;&gt;&gt; large number of users do not like the efficiency of existing&#xA;&gt;&gt; implementations doesn&#39;t tell me anything I disagree with or didn&#39;t&#xA;&gt;&gt; already know. Whats being discussed around here contributes to&#xA;&gt;&gt; prioritizing improvements over the existing implementations.&#xA;&gt;&gt;&#xA;&gt;&gt; I hope this clarifies something.&#xA;&gt;&gt;&#xA;&gt;&gt;&#xA;&gt;&gt; ------------------------------------------------------------------------------&#xA;&gt;&gt; Put Bad Developers to Shame&#xA;&gt;&gt; Dominate Development with Jenkins Continuous Integration&#xA;&gt;&gt; Continuously Automate Build, Test &amp; Deployment&#xA;&gt;&gt; Start a new project now. Try Jenkins in the cloud.&#xA;&gt;&gt; http://p.sf.net/sfu/13600_Cloudbees&#xA;&gt;&gt; _______________________________________________&#xA;&gt;&gt; Bitcoin-development mailing list&#xA;&gt;&gt; Bitcoin-development at lists.sourceforge.net&#xA;&gt;&gt; https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development&#xA;&gt;&gt;&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; ------------------------------------------------------------------------------&#xA;&gt; Put Bad Developers to Shame&#xA;&gt; Dominate Development with Jenkins Continuous Integration&#xA;&gt; Continuously Automate Build, Test &amp; Deployment&#xA;&gt; Start a new project now. Try Jenkins in the cloud.&#xA;&gt; http://p.sf.net/sfu/13600_Cloudbees&#xA;&gt; _______________________________________________&#xA;&gt; Bitcoin-development mailing list&#xA;&gt; Bitcoin-development at lists.sourceforge.net&#xA;&gt; https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt;&#xA;-------------- next part --------------&#xA;An HTML attachment was scrubbed...&#xA;URL: &lt;http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20140410/0246775b/attachment.html&gt;</html></oembed>