diff options
author | Matt Corallo <bitcoin-list@bluematt.me> | 2012-11-21 13:38:37 -0500 |
---|---|---|
committer | bitcoindev <bitcoindev@gnusha.org> | 2012-11-21 18:38:45 +0000 |
commit | 9119d6fc3d128ead1d8750cfbe31ac5549b8a04a (patch) | |
tree | aa8e525db1054968d8a9ebc09dc08190dbc14b5e /19 | |
parent | e3eb495a909898f93904810cf48dfeca3a0112a2 (diff) | |
download | pi-bitcoindev-9119d6fc3d128ead1d8750cfbe31ac5549b8a04a.tar.gz pi-bitcoindev-9119d6fc3d128ead1d8750cfbe31ac5549b8a04a.zip |
Re: [Bitcoin-development] Draft BIP for Bloom filtering
Diffstat (limited to '19')
-rw-r--r-- | 19/37969691a11d5078cfba893f37404fd506058d | 96 |
1 files changed, 96 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/19/37969691a11d5078cfba893f37404fd506058d b/19/37969691a11d5078cfba893f37404fd506058d new file mode 100644 index 000000000..e8b2f40ba --- /dev/null +++ b/19/37969691a11d5078cfba893f37404fd506058d @@ -0,0 +1,96 @@ +Received: from sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.192] + helo=mx.sourceforge.net) + by sfs-ml-1.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) + (envelope-from <bitcoin-list@bluematt.me>) id 1TbFC9-0005tG-JY + for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; + Wed, 21 Nov 2012 18:38:45 +0000 +Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of bluematt.me + designates 173.246.101.161 as permitted sender) + client-ip=173.246.101.161; + envelope-from=bitcoin-list@bluematt.me; helo=mail.bluematt.me; +Received: from vps.bluematt.me ([173.246.101.161] helo=mail.bluematt.me) + by sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) + id 1TbFC8-0002Er-A4 for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; + Wed, 21 Nov 2012 18:38:45 +0000 +Received: from [192.168.2.25] (69-36-219-195.dynamic.dsl.skybest.com + [69.36.219.195]) + by mail.bluematt.me (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 2742E5206 + for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>; + Wed, 21 Nov 2012 18:38:38 +0000 (UTC) +Message-ID: <1353523117.1085.14.camel@localhost.localdomain> +From: Matt Corallo <bitcoin-list@bluematt.me> +To: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net +Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2012 13:38:37 -0500 +In-Reply-To: <20121121151534.GA5540@vps7135.xlshosting.net> +References: <CANEZrP0XALwBFJyZTzYd5xBp4MRrjv0s_y2tOXbO7UgjWF2HzA@mail.gmail.com> + <20121121151534.GA5540@vps7135.xlshosting.net> +Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" +X-Mailer: Evolution 3.6.2 +Mime-Version: 1.0 +Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit +X-Spam-Score: -1.8 (-) +X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net. + See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details. + -1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for + sender-domain + -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record + -0.3 RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay + domain +X-Headers-End: 1TbFC8-0002Er-A4 +Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Draft BIP for Bloom filtering +X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net +X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 +Precedence: list +List-Id: <bitcoin-development.lists.sourceforge.net> +List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>, + <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=unsubscribe> +List-Archive: <http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_name=bitcoin-development> +List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net> +List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=help> +List-Subscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>, + <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=subscribe> +X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2012 18:38:45 -0000 + +On Wed, 2012-11-21 at 16:15 +0100, Pieter Wuille wrote: +> On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 05:56:07PM +0200, Mike Hearn wrote: +> > I've written a draft BIP describing the bloom filtering protocol +> > extension developed by myself and Matt. +> > +> > https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/BIP_0037 +> +> Two comments I made on the pullreq page, which are probably better discussed here: +> * The 0xFFFFFFFF/(n-1)*i seed value seems intended to result in large bit +> differences between the different hash function's seeds. Together with the tweak, +> however, the first and the last now get seeds tweak and tweak-1. I think +> something simpler like k1*i+k2*n+tweak is better (with k1 and k2 arbitrary large +> odd 32-bit integers). +Meh, sure, whatever...I dont really think the seed values matter +significantly (Murmur3 isnt that bad of a hash function...) (and the +original algorithm wont result in a significant bit difference between +the seeds in many cases). +> * I feel uneasy about the arbitrary filter parameters used for the implicitly +> created filter when sending filteradd without filterload. The server cannot be +> expected to make a reasonable guess how the client is going to use the filter, +> and the client still has to track how large the server-side filter grows anyway. +> I'd prefer to make this simply illegal (DoS 100): filteradd always requires an +> active filter. +I think there is some consensus here, and I have no problem doing it +this way (in large part, filteradd should not be used at all). +> Maybe the actual filter data in filterload can be made optional: +> if it is omitted, it's assumed to be all zeroes (though that would mean the size +> has to be specified). +> +I'm not sure here, if you are sending a filter just to use filteradd to +add things to it manually, you are doing something very, very, very +wrong... Though we could certainly do some kind of compressed bloom +filter encoding to allow for small filter loads (loading the few things +you need to filteradd right away) where you anticipate adding +significantly more filter elements down the road (can anyone even come +up with a case where you anticipate doing this?), the filter is small +enough (max 36kB) that I see little benefit for the large increase in +complexity (or is this another repeat of the merkle branch discussion?) + +Matt + + + |