Received: from sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.191] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-2.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1U37vx-0003eS-I1 for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Wed, 06 Feb 2013 16:33:17 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com designates 209.85.214.170 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.214.170; envelope-from=mh.in.england@gmail.com; helo=mail-ob0-f170.google.com; Received: from mail-ob0-f170.google.com ([209.85.214.170]) by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1U37vv-00028x-Qh for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Wed, 06 Feb 2013 16:33:17 +0000 Received: by mail-ob0-f170.google.com with SMTP id wc20so1660759obb.29 for ; Wed, 06 Feb 2013 08:33:10 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.182.159.98 with SMTP id xb2mr21988186obb.35.1360168390457; Wed, 06 Feb 2013 08:33:10 -0800 (PST) Sender: mh.in.england@gmail.com Received: by 10.76.86.169 with HTTP; Wed, 6 Feb 2013 08:33:10 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <20121121151534.GA5540@vps7135.xlshosting.net> <1353523117.1085.14.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20121127211019.GA22701@vps7135.xlshosting.net> <1357876751.1740.4.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1358348447.1048.0.camel@localhost.localdomain> Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2013 17:33:10 +0100 X-Google-Sender-Auth: SisW1EJpkqd5LSfuMEo_-4LIHOE Message-ID: From: Mike Hearn To: Matt Corallo Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=14dae9399a4dbf7a0704d510e17f 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: 1U37vv-00028x-Qh Cc: Bitcoin Dev 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: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2013 16:33:17 -0000 --14dae9399a4dbf7a0704d510e17f Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Can somebody please unlock the BIP wiki page? I don't know why it was locked but it's stale. On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 12:13 PM, Mike Hearn wrote: > Sorry, to clarify, these are test builds available here: > > > https://code.google.com/p/bitcoin-wallet/downloads/detail?name=bitcoin-wallet-2.39_bitcoinj0.7.apk&can=2&q= > > It's not on the Play store yet. It probably makes sense to release after > some more testing and after Bitcoin 0.8 comes out, as otherwise there's a > risk that 0.7 snapshot nodes will get overloaded. > > > On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 12:09 PM, Mike Hearn wrote: > >> Andreas has uploaded Android builds that use the new bloom filtering and >> peer selection code (also, dependency analysis of transactions). >> >> The performance gain is very cool. The app feels dramatically faster to >> start up and sync. Because the app syncs on charge when I opened it around >> lunchtime it had only 7 hours of data to sync (42 blocks) and it brought up >> 6 peer connections, found a 0.7.99 node and synced all in <2 seconds. That >> was on wifi. >> >> The next lowest hanging perf fruit is almost certainly to optimize disk >> accesses. Flash on Android devices seems to be much slower than laptop >> flash storage, and current bitcoinj is very inefficient in how it writes >> (one write per block header!). This matters a lot when doing fast catchup >> for first time users. >> >> The BIP is now a little bit stale, but only slightly. >> >> >> On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 4:00 PM, Matt Corallo wrote: >> >>> Actually, there is one more minor algorithmic change I would like to >>> make to the way the hash function is computed really quick before it >>> gets merged, I'll have that finished up by the end of today. >>> >>> Matt >>> >>> On Wed, 2013-01-16 at 11:43 +0100, Mike Hearn wrote: >>> > Matts latest code has been tested by Andreas and seems to work >>> > correctly. He had to extend the client a bit to refresh the filter >>> > every 25k blocks because even with the extra flag, eventually the >>> > filter degrades into uselessness, but it did still improve the >>> > situation quite a bit. >>> > >>> > Because it's unit tested, been reviewed by me several times, has an >>> > interoperable implementation that has also been tested by Andreas in a >>> > build of his smartphone app, I'm going to ACK the current code and >>> > request that it be merged in to 0.8. What do you say Gavin? >>> > >>> > The next step after that would be profiling. It's a big performance >>> > improvement for SPV clients already, but not as much as I anticipated. >>> > I suspect there's a simple bottleneck or missed optimization >>> > somewhere. But that can obviously come post-0.8 >>> >>> >>> >> > --14dae9399a4dbf7a0704d510e17f Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Can somebody please unlock the BIP wiki page? I don't = know why it was locked but it's stale.
=

On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 12:13 PM, Mike H= earn <mike@plan99.net> wrote:
Sorry, to clarify, these ar= e test builds available here:


It's not on the Play store yet. It probably m= akes sense to release after some more testing and after Bitcoin 0.8 comes o= ut, as otherwise there's a risk that 0.7 snapshot nodes will get overlo= aded.

On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 12:09 PM, Mike Hea= rn <mike@plan99.net> wrote:
Andreas has uploaded Android builds that use the new bloom= filtering and peer selection code (also, dependency analysis of transactio= ns).

The performance gain is very cool. The app feels dr= amatically faster to start up and sync. Because the app syncs on charge whe= n I opened it around lunchtime it had only 7 hours of data to sync (42 bloc= ks) and it brought up 6 peer connections, found a 0.7.99 node and synced al= l in <2 seconds. That was on wifi.

The next lowest hanging perf fruit is almost certainly = to optimize disk accesses. Flash on Android devices seems to be much slower= than laptop flash storage, and current bitcoinj is very inefficient in how= it writes (one write per block header!). This matters a lot when doing fas= t catchup for first time users.

The BIP is now a little bit stale, but only slightly.


On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 4:00 PM, Matt Corallo <= bitcoin-list@= bluematt.me> wrote:
Actually, there is one more minor algorithmi= c change I would like to
make to the way the hash function is computed really quick before it
gets merged, I'll have that finished up by the end of today.

Matt

On Wed, 2013-01-16 at 11:43 +0100, Mike Hearn wrote:
> Matts latest code has been tested by Andreas and seems to work
> correctly. He had to extend the client a bit to refresh the filter
> every 25k blocks because even with the extra flag, eventually the
> filter degrades into uselessness, but it did still improve the
> situation quite a bit.
>
> Because it's unit tested, been reviewed by me several times, has a= n
> interoperable implementation that has also been tested by Andreas in a=
> build of his smartphone app, =C2=A0I'm going to ACK the current co= de and
> request that it be merged in to 0.8. What do you say Gavin?
>
> The next step after that would be profiling. It's a big performanc= e
> improvement for SPV clients already, but not as much as I anticipated.=
> I suspect there's a simple bottleneck or missed optimization
> somewhere. But that can obviously come post-0.8





--14dae9399a4dbf7a0704d510e17f--