On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 08:22:10AM +1000, Gavin Andresen wrote: > Mike pointed out exactly the reason I oppose a NODE_BLOOM service bit: I > also think it is a bad idea to start making various bits and pieces of the > protocol optional.
> It is bad for privacy (easier to fingerprint nodes) and bad for
> decentralization (fewer nodes support your required feature set). And every
> bit you add can give you an exponential number of combinations your QA team
> should test.
Mike's and others have been talking about persistent node-specific
identifiers, and after all at this level there are IP addresses;
fingerprinting nodes is trivial.
> I'd say the same thing about NODE_TRANSACTION ("I don't know about blocks,
> have and NODE_BLOCK bits.
We need options so peopl can contribute to relaying and the health of
the network - these edge cases are going to be tested anyway by people
like me deciding to disable bloom filtering.
--
'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Get 100% visibility into Java/.NET code with AppDynamics Lite! It's a free troubleshooting tool designed for production. Get down to code-level detail for bottlenecks, with <2% overhead. Download for free and get started troubleshooting in minutes. http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=48897031&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
_______________________________________________ Bitcoin-development mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
