summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/19
diff options
context:
space:
mode:
authorMatt Corallo <bitcoin-list@bluematt.me>2012-11-21 13:38:37 -0500
committerbitcoindev <bitcoindev@gnusha.org>2012-11-21 18:38:45 +0000
commit9119d6fc3d128ead1d8750cfbe31ac5549b8a04a (patch)
treeaa8e525db1054968d8a9ebc09dc08190dbc14b5e /19
parente3eb495a909898f93904810cf48dfeca3a0112a2 (diff)
downloadpi-bitcoindev-9119d6fc3d128ead1d8750cfbe31ac5549b8a04a.tar.gz
pi-bitcoindev-9119d6fc3d128ead1d8750cfbe31ac5549b8a04a.zip
Re: [Bitcoin-development] Draft BIP for Bloom filtering
Diffstat (limited to '19')
-rw-r--r--19/37969691a11d5078cfba893f37404fd506058d96
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
+
+
+