From: "Luke-Jr" <luke@dashjr.org>
To: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2012 18:59:03 +0000
User-Agent: KMail/1.13.7 (Linux/3.4.10-gentoo-nestfix; KDE/4.8.3; x86_64; ; )
References: <BA7EEDEA-5A56-42F5-A43D-0D4C9CC99DBC@godofgod.co.uk>
In-Reply-To: <BA7EEDEA-5A56-42F5-A43D-0D4C9CC99DBC@godofgod.co.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain;
  charset="iso-8859-15"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <201209101859.05009.luke@dashjr.org>
Cc: Matthew Mitchell <matthewmitchell@godofgod.co.uk>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Segmented Block Relaying BIP draft.
Precedence: list

On Monday, September 10, 2012 3:07:52 PM Matthew Mitchell 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

Most of the problem with block propagation lies in implementation, not 
protocol... Distributing missing transaction on an as-needed basis is a 
possible improvement at the protocol level, but there hasn't (AFAIK) been any 
research into whether the little benefit outweighs the cost yet. In any case, 
I don't see why 6 new messages are needed instead of simply adding a single 
new type to getinv?