diff options
| author | Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net> | 2012-05-16 18:46:59 +0200 |
|---|---|---|
| committer | bitcoindev <bitcoindev@gnusha.org> | 2012-05-16 16:47:11 +0000 |
| commit | 1ed78870c6305ea750cd9812fe752083988b50c5 (patch) | |
| tree | ab46549faf2292299c45c063c4906530975b423c | |
| parent | 74346ae7cc8c54f83ee0e1eaf4973e860c1f2928 (diff) | |
| download | pi-bitcoindev-1ed78870c6305ea750cd9812fe752083988b50c5.tar.gz pi-bitcoindev-1ed78870c6305ea750cd9812fe752083988b50c5.zip | |
Re: [Bitcoin-development] BIP 33 - Stratized Nodes
| -rw-r--r-- | 44/89fe0e53c17fb13a89bf51c889e761df9387c0 | 130 |
1 files changed, 130 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/44/89fe0e53c17fb13a89bf51c889e761df9387c0 b/44/89fe0e53c17fb13a89bf51c889e761df9387c0 new file mode 100644 index 000000000..7c8f1c44e --- /dev/null +++ b/44/89fe0e53c17fb13a89bf51c889e761df9387c0 @@ -0,0 +1,130 @@ +Received: from sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.194] + helo=mx.sourceforge.net) + by sfs-ml-4.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) + (envelope-from <mh.in.england@gmail.com>) id 1SUhNX-00042U-DA + for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; + Wed, 16 May 2012 16:47:11 +0000 +Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com + designates 74.125.82.175 as permitted sender) + client-ip=74.125.82.175; envelope-from=mh.in.england@gmail.com; + helo=mail-we0-f175.google.com; +Received: from mail-we0-f175.google.com ([74.125.82.175]) + by sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) + (Exim 4.76) id 1SUhNR-0004nw-VY + for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; + Wed, 16 May 2012 16:47:11 +0000 +Received: by werg55 with SMTP id g55so811348wer.34 + for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>; + Wed, 16 May 2012 09:46:59 -0700 (PDT) +MIME-Version: 1.0 +Received: by 10.216.207.151 with SMTP id n23mr2448089weo.100.1337186819787; + Wed, 16 May 2012 09:46:59 -0700 (PDT) +Sender: mh.in.england@gmail.com +Received: by 10.216.80.31 with HTTP; Wed, 16 May 2012 09:46:59 -0700 (PDT) +In-Reply-To: <1337186094.12490.YahooMailNeo@web121005.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> +References: <1337186094.12490.YahooMailNeo@web121005.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> +Date: Wed, 16 May 2012 18:46:59 +0200 +X-Google-Sender-Auth: HOWLbO8LaNbNVIl6kDOq26DjX2c +Message-ID: <CANEZrP1t-xhHqJ0xGQwxxx-ddtRh7jtn9Yhcau2prKNt+PZHgw@mail.gmail.com> +From: Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net> +To: Amir Taaki <zgenjix@yahoo.com> +Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=0016e6d622c8644a6004c02a117d +X-Spam-Score: -0.5 (/) +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 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider + (mh.in.england[at]gmail.com) + -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record + 1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message + 0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature, + not necessarily valid + -0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature +X-Headers-End: 1SUhNR-0004nw-VY +Cc: "bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net" + <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net> +Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] BIP 33 - Stratized Nodes +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, 16 May 2012 16:47:11 -0000 + +--0016e6d622c8644a6004c02a117d +Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 + +Thanks for getting this started. + +With regards to the specific proposal, I don't believe it's the best option +and still plan to eventually implement the original design outlined more +than a year ago in this thread: + + https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=7972.msg116285#msg116285 + +Namely that you use a new protocol command to set a Bloom filter on a +connection. Only transactions matching that filter will appear in relayed +inventory. Blocks that are requested will arrive as a header plus +transaction/merkle branch pairs. Clients are expected to maintain and track +the block chain as per usual, but instead of downloading the whole chain +and then dropping the irrelevant transactions, that filtering is done +server side. By strengthening or weakening the Bloom filters you can choose +your preferred point on the privacy/bandwidth-usage spectrum. It is a +fairly simple change to the Satoshi and BitcoinJ codebases but still allows +clients to gain confidence in their balance by examining the chain, and +this is true even in the presence of a hijacked internet connection (you +can't trust pending transactions that way, but you can still trust +confirmed transactions). + +The filters would be applied to each data block in each script rather than +having a specific knowledge of addresses. In this way you can select for +things like multisig outputs or outputs which don't use addresses / pubkeys +to authenticate. + +I could write a BIP for this alternative protocol if somebody else wants to +implement it. I was going to wait until I had time to do both BIP and +implementation, but I think some simple optimizations to BitcoinJ can keep +its performance good enough for the short term. + +--0016e6d622c8644a6004c02a117d +Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 +Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable + +Thanks for getting this started.=C2=A0<div><br></div><div>With regards to t= +he specific proposal, I don't believe it's the best option and stil= +l plan to eventually implement the original design outlined more than a yea= +r ago in this thread:</div> +<div><br></div><div>=C2=A0=C2=A0<a href=3D"https://bitcointalk.org/index.ph= +p?topic=3D7972.msg116285#msg116285">https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic= +=3D7972.msg116285#msg116285</a></div><div><br></div><div>Namely that you us= +e a new protocol command to set a Bloom filter on a connection. Only transa= +ctions matching that filter will appear in relayed inventory. Blocks that a= +re requested will arrive as a header plus transaction/merkle branch pairs. = +Clients are expected to maintain and track the block chain as per usual, bu= +t instead of downloading the whole chain and then dropping the irrelevant t= +ransactions, that filtering is done server side. By strengthening or weaken= +ing the Bloom filters you can choose your preferred point on the privacy/ba= +ndwidth-usage spectrum. It is a fairly simple change to the Satoshi and Bit= +coinJ codebases but still allows clients to gain confidence in their balanc= +e by examining the chain, and this is true even in the presence of a hijack= +ed internet connection (you can't trust pending transactions that way, = +but you can still trust confirmed transactions).</div> +<div><br></div><div>The filters would be applied to each data block in each= + script rather than having a specific knowledge of addresses. In this way y= +ou can select for things like multisig outputs or outputs which don't u= +se addresses / pubkeys to authenticate.</div> +<div><br></div><div>I could write a BIP for this alternative protocol if so= +mebody else wants to implement it. I was going to wait until I had time to = +do both BIP and implementation, but I think some simple optimizations to Bi= +tcoinJ can keep its performance good enough for the short term.</div> + +--0016e6d622c8644a6004c02a117d-- + + |