Wladimir [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2014-04-10 📝 Original message:On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at ...
📅 Original date posted:2014-04-10
📝 Original message:On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 8:04 AM, Tamas Blummer <tamas at bitsofproof.com>wrote:
> Serving headers should be default but storing and serving full blocks
> configurable to ranges, so people can tailor to their bandwith and space
> available.
>
I do agree that it is important.
This does require changes to the P2P protocol, as currently there is no way
for a node to signal that they store only part of the block chain. Also,
clients will have to be modified to take this into account. Right now they
are under the assumption that every full node can send them every
(previous) block.
What would this involve?
Do you know of any previous work towards this?
Wladimir
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20140410/fb3a77bb/attachment.html>
📝 Original message:On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 8:04 AM, Tamas Blummer <tamas at bitsofproof.com>wrote:
> Serving headers should be default but storing and serving full blocks
> configurable to ranges, so people can tailor to their bandwith and space
> available.
>
I do agree that it is important.
This does require changes to the P2P protocol, as currently there is no way
for a node to signal that they store only part of the block chain. Also,
clients will have to be modified to take this into account. Right now they
are under the assumption that every full node can send them every
(previous) block.
What would this involve?
Do you know of any previous work towards this?
Wladimir
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20140410/fb3a77bb/attachment.html>