[Bitcoin-development] Why are we bleeding nodes?

Tier Nolan tier.nolan at gmail.com
Mon Apr 7 19:13:07 UTC 2014

On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 8:03 PM, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell at gmail.com> wrote:

> A bitmap also means high overhead and-- if it's used to advertise
> non-contiguous blocks-- poor locality, since blocks are fetched
> sequentially.

A range seems like a great compromise.  Putting it in the address is also a
pretty cool.

If light nodes selected a random contiguous 1GB of the block-chain, then
they could handle most of the download overhead, rather than the full nodes.

Another way to do it would be to have something like a routing table.  If a
node is queried for a block, it can reply with the IP of a node with that
block instead of sending the block.

One problem is that it means that light nodes have to accept incoming
connections.  Otherwise, it would have to be routed through the network.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20140407/b5bfb780/attachment.html>

More information about the bitcoin-dev mailing list