diff options
| author | Matt Corallo <debian-bugs@bluematt.me> | 2012-09-10 12:29:20 -0400 |
|---|---|---|
| committer | bitcoindev <bitcoindev@gnusha.org> | 2012-09-10 16:29:35 +0000 |
| commit | 2d610a5fc07705edd1d4454a6818e507349766f6 (patch) | |
| tree | 16e918847db2ef87f36c5582f35ee44863eb4d4e | |
| parent | 59d20a3b5f9474786074a9506ba96ceb1699a935 (diff) | |
| download | pi-bitcoindev-2d610a5fc07705edd1d4454a6818e507349766f6.tar.gz pi-bitcoindev-2d610a5fc07705edd1d4454a6818e507349766f6.zip | |
Re: [Bitcoin-development] Segmented Block Relaying BIP draft.
| -rw-r--r-- | 71/ab17fcd6eac20d485b06ce174ea2bc4e2c835c | 80 |
1 files changed, 80 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/71/ab17fcd6eac20d485b06ce174ea2bc4e2c835c b/71/ab17fcd6eac20d485b06ce174ea2bc4e2c835c new file mode 100644 index 000000000..e7658e070 --- /dev/null +++ b/71/ab17fcd6eac20d485b06ce174ea2bc4e2c835c @@ -0,0 +1,80 @@ +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 <bitcoin-list@bluematt.me>) id 1TB6rf-0002C2-HR + for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; + Mon, 10 Sep 2012 16:29:35 +0000 +Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-4.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-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) + id 1TB6rb-0004pf-Jc for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; + Mon, 10 Sep 2012 16:29:35 +0000 +Received: from [152.23.19.209] (mid-campus-04018.wireless.unc.edu + [152.23.19.209]) + by mail.bluematt.me (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 5EF954931 + for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>; + Mon, 10 Sep 2012 16:29:26 +0000 (UTC) +Message-ID: <1347294397.1419.4.camel@localhost.localdomain> +From: Matt Corallo <debian-bugs@bluematt.me> +To: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net +In-Reply-To: <CAAS2fgTPLX+p_8eq8XTKHO-LsE+PgMs5SoDh=ho3wcdgCDXR6Q@mail.gmail.com> +References: <BA7EEDEA-5A56-42F5-A43D-0D4C9CC99DBC@godofgod.co.uk> + <CAAS2fgTPLX+p_8eq8XTKHO-LsE+PgMs5SoDh=ho3wcdgCDXR6Q@mail.gmail.com> +Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" +Mime-Version: 1.0 +Resent-From: Matt Corallo <bitcoin-list@bluematt.me> +Resent-To: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net +Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2012 12:29:20 -0400 +X-Mailer: Evolution 3.4.4 +Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit +X-Spam-Score: -1.9 (-) +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 + -0.4 RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay + domain +X-Headers-End: 1TB6rb-0004pf-Jc +Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Segmented Block Relaying BIP draft. +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: Mon, 10 Sep 2012 16:29:35 -0000 + +I actually implemented parts of the header+ v<tx> stuff in a branch with +my bloom filter stuff, you can see it here: +https://github.com/TheBlueMatt/bitcoin/commits/bloom%2Brelayblock +Its pretty stupid and would be pretty easy to DoS/get it stuck/etc, but +in theory it works. I don't see much reason why we'd need anything +significantly more complicated, but maybe there is a use-case I'm +missing? + +Matt + +On Mon, 2012-09-10 at 11:14 -0400, Gregory Maxwell wrote: +> On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 11:07 AM, Matthew Mitchell +> <matthewmitchell@godofgod.co.uk> wrote: +> > Here is a BIP draft for improving the block relaying and validation so that +> > it can be done in parallel and so that redundancy can be removed. This +> > becomes more beneficial the larger the block sizes are. +> > +> > https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/User:MatthewLM/ImprovedBlockRelayingProposal +> +> Why does this focus on actually sending the hash tree? The block +> header + transaction list + transactions a node doesn't already know +> (often just the coinbase) is enough. + + + |