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.