MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAD3i26BibcaMdbQv-j+Egz_1y0GuhzepBp5ATNpj=Qv8hi1TVA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <d43c6082-1b2c-c95b-5144-99ad0021ea6c@mattcorallo.com>
	<CAAS2fgRF-MhOvpFY6c_qAPzNMo3GQ28RExdSbOV6Q6Oy2iWn1A@mail.gmail.com>
	<22d375c7-a032-8691-98dc-0e6ee87a4b08@mattcorallo.com>
	<CAAS2fgR3QRHeHEjjOS1ckEkL-h7=Na56G12hYW9Bmy9WEMduvg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CADZtCShLmH_k-UssNWahUNHgHvWQQ1y638LwaOfnJEipwjbiYg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAAS2fgQLCN_cuZ-3QPjCLfYOtHfEk=SenTn5=y9LfGzJxLPR3Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<CADZtCSjYr6VMBVQ=rx44SgRWcFSXhVXUZJB=rHMh4X78Z2eY1A@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAO3Pvs9K3n=OzVQ06XGQvzNC+Aqp9S60kWM9VRPA8hWTJ3u9BQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<c23a5346-9f99-44f0-abbf-d7e7979bf1d8@gmail.com>
	<CAO3Pvs_MA4TtgCCu1NgCBjK2bZRN+rKnGQJN6m4yTrViBXRiPA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAD3i26BibcaMdbQv-j+Egz_1y0GuhzepBp5ATNpj=Qv8hi1TVA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Jim Posen <jim.posen@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 22 May 2018 17:42:29 -0700
Message-ID: <CADZtCShAYpbN=4qNoX5c8yd1j08+mEZzG8gZwcHrj2suY0mb9w@mail.gmail.com>
To: =?UTF-8?Q?Johan_Tor=C3=A5s_Halseth?= <johanth@gmail.com>, 
	Matt Corallo <lf-lists@mattcorallo.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000004bd413056cd4cf05"
Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP 158 Flexibility and Filter Size
Precedence: list

--0000000000004bd413056cd4cf05
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"

>
> My suggestion was to advertise a bitfield for each filter type the node
> serves,
> where the bitfield indicates what elements are part of the filters. This
> essentially
> removes the notion of decided filter types and instead leaves the decision
> to
> full-nodes.
>

I think it makes more sense to construct entirely separate filters for the
different types of elements and allow clients to download only the ones
they care about. If there are enough elements per filter, the compression
ratio shouldn't be much worse by splitting them up. This prevents the
exponential blowup in the number of filters that you mention, Johan, and it
works nicely with service bits for advertising different filter types
independently.

So if we created three separate filter types, one for output scripts, one
for input outpoints, and one for TXIDs, each signaled with a separate
service bit, are people good with that? Or do you think there shouldn't be
a TXID filter at all, Matt? I didn't include the option of a prev output
script filter or rolling that into the block output script filter because
it changes the security model (cannot be proven to be correct/incorrect
succinctly).

Then there's the question of whether to separate or combine the headers.
I'd lean towards keeping them separate because it's simpler that way.

--0000000000004bd413056cd4cf05
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><blo=
ckquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #c=
cc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div>My suggestion was to adver=
tise a bitfield for each filter type the node serves,<br></div><div>where t=
he bitfield indicates what elements are part of the filters. This essential=
ly</div><div>removes the notion of decided filter types and instead leaves =
the decision to=C2=A0</div><div>full-nodes.</div></div></blockquote><div><b=
r></div><div>I think it makes more sense to construct entirely separate fil=
ters for the different types of elements and allow clients to download only=
 the ones they care about. If there are enough elements per filter, the com=
pression ratio shouldn&#39;t be much worse by splitting them up. This preve=
nts the exponential blowup in the number of filters that you mention, Johan=
, and it works nicely with service bits for advertising different filter ty=
pes independently.</div><div><br></div><div>So if we created three separate=
 filter types, one for output scripts, one for input outpoints, and one for=
 TXIDs, each signaled with a separate service bit, are people good with tha=
t? Or do you think there shouldn&#39;t be a TXID filter at all, Matt? I did=
n&#39;t include the option of a prev output script filter or rolling that i=
nto the block output script filter because it changes the security model (c=
annot be proven to be correct/incorrect succinctly).</div><div><br></div><d=
iv>Then there&#39;s the question of whether to separate or combine the head=
ers. I&#39;d lean towards keeping them separate because it&#39;s simpler th=
at way.<br></div></div></div></div>

--0000000000004bd413056cd4cf05--