Received: from sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.192] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-3.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from <gmaxwell@gmail.com>) id 1X8JPM-00087H-P5 for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Sat, 19 Jul 2014 01:25:52 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com designates 209.85.217.172 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.217.172; envelope-from=gmaxwell@gmail.com; helo=mail-lb0-f172.google.com; Received: from mail-lb0-f172.google.com ([209.85.217.172]) by sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1X8JPK-00082L-Rk for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Sat, 19 Jul 2014 01:25:52 +0000 Received: by mail-lb0-f172.google.com with SMTP id z11so3388119lbi.31 for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>; Fri, 18 Jul 2014 18:25:44 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.112.143.8 with SMTP id sa8mr8638605lbb.89.1405733144158; Fri, 18 Jul 2014 18:25:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.112.35.138 with HTTP; Fri, 18 Jul 2014 18:25:44 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <CAPkFh0uuo=vOiLVTvozPiO7L26A4DpJ9nrKGeQZ+DC6HbO27TQ@mail.gmail.com> References: <CA+iPb=EaX=bvOjNtZ+LnYTMRLQQ9nFcrefAkBdv8eActoX_b8A@mail.gmail.com> <CABsx9T0ag_o_mu=5Q7Ju7s2hO3jz-o5g9FihE9h4B6+ednd2Pg@mail.gmail.com> <CAJHLa0NZRF+1QjSwtwjaTE07NWJ_U-O-DE24=P5eSAutMqTupg@mail.gmail.com> <CABsx9T2BDBNqvinVNk3FmBRWU7R8jf6Vm6NaH74te0FRCh1O-w@mail.gmail.com> <CAJHLa0O=eCoyvV19dWgTnYd9Di0wLLZtWmCPidc-dWqPNQv_oQ@mail.gmail.com> <CA+iPb=H2fkjCxS7-hYqHjFzfMh6onk5RqZMxa8zsXeTn6pQMpA@mail.gmail.com> <CAJHLa0NRUdAPuKXgKDBmXOs9to7gMpHv9ECCz_hTfZpg7SVVJA@mail.gmail.com> <CA+iPb=HhGkiuaAxQMvpDpUdeU0uA5unPa_0uHGkS3LrmJzEnyQ@mail.gmail.com> <CA+iPb=FZS9FxP9uYWHTzLpSVJ2uaOwr4dTQSvYuJjhVYCcJOew@mail.gmail.com> <CAJHLa0MSdafZiXNH_L8qqH63n3wP5hb0R=EX3SJtsD40Fq_VOA@mail.gmail.com> <CAPkFh0uuo=vOiLVTvozPiO7L26A4DpJ9nrKGeQZ+DC6HbO27TQ@mail.gmail.com> Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2014 18:25:44 -0700 Message-ID: <CAAS2fgSfpTmNcexSV6U3wvbdddqZ8Pb0WVYh35jqNkJCMRbBkw@mail.gmail.com> From: Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell@gmail.com> To: =?UTF-8?Q?Emin_G=C3=BCn_Sirer?= <el33th4x0r@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Score: -1.6 (-) 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 (gmaxwell[at]gmail.com) -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record -0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from author's domain 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: 1X8JPK-00082L-Rk Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net> Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Squashing redundant tx data in blocks on the wire 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: Sat, 19 Jul 2014 01:25:52 -0000 On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 5:54 PM, Emin G=C3=BCn Sirer <el33th4x0r@gmail.com>= wrote: > The problem being tackled here is very similar to "set reconciliation," > where > peer A thinks that the set of transactions that should be in the block is > S_A, Most things I've seen working in this space are attempting to minimize the data transfered. At least for the miner-interested case the round complexity is much more important because a single RTT is enough to basically send the whole block on a lot of very relevant paths. I know much better is possible (see up-thread where I linked to an old proposal to use forward error correction to transfer with low data transfer (but not optimal) and negligible probability of needing a round-trip, with a tradeoff for more overhead for lower roundtrip probability).