Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 49D66411 for ; Sun, 8 May 2016 10:26:10 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-qg0-f53.google.com (mail-qg0-f53.google.com [209.85.192.53]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 92AEAAB for ; Sun, 8 May 2016 10:26:09 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-qg0-f53.google.com with SMTP id f74so76323740qge.2 for ; Sun, 08 May 2016 03:26:09 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=CXZ9UCHAtoVRHV0u9YwMSxm4SY9CO1mh4ZsvgmlY5U8=; b=BspsLPp/aIQ5ImOjVOmwBaaM5g4/XBRa7JPXYNQqy73O6LrB+wCYIuqS0bCtc5CbRH KzDeHPhc3VAfmGvxvnT68H9fjTopH0FYTa05+acDwoZg8tIZs12Hgw6gIwCjLzVXoBbl C+KQwEf0F9Cqe8+Vbsyul31301f3cyJO0RrtYCvpJHe5MRywYHZRldaPbgnpGy1J1ulP FdKJraR5zvJDbHQQO61J3nPlGJwk1AIJfiXqXW2EzfxxbJ8e/VTX5L4lzspeWAGcuH0J vegxv60tRJxSZeUtpHfewOLxWs3HhfI+rDI09OSbOni3oBbK7iv3CkHdZSvVo8KI4F01 eR8Q== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:from:date:message-id:subject :to:cc; bh=CXZ9UCHAtoVRHV0u9YwMSxm4SY9CO1mh4ZsvgmlY5U8=; b=RcS6USjADFjkh70yB2FcUhaM3VSDnlYTGtjxGhdgIltXnePZM8M9LiC8eclTupyaG8 YPB1WYN/eri42ldhAUUkWPGdIMBEa8ZcpnlLSNbxGfDrM6QmSrAnz6fzKt6U2D6kfie1 pVWQoTtLSocxrkn5AXjR/V3/2V6WUU68QM3b7SOxUU7zFt2qDvxsuQS8Yn9fmVUYk8A3 zs+CLucKr8zhu/B+M4Y0fwBaJ4HSZknNjXvA3PY/lsNUf6SpHBgB6JW6wzNeXUgQ0nz5 +IoLcLHAjWD0rZbpL9ecyPTV6Tyuzu/0syzG/0Y7wj6cZcP8kH1/9xxPvtFVggVaNn1O mJOQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AOPr4FXJoaGFjFL9w2gPEfUS5SCQKOsxtOA5kfQYy4tzSJ0No/61cExktnouluI+mHV6T2Nd89H0dlp5TVxemg== X-Received: by 10.140.22.232 with SMTP id 95mr29165117qgn.24.1462703168784; Sun, 08 May 2016 03:26:08 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: slashene@gmail.com Received: by 10.55.92.7 with HTTP; Sun, 8 May 2016 03:25:49 -0700 (PDT) From: Nicolas Dorier Date: Sun, 8 May 2016 19:25:49 +0900 X-Google-Sender-Auth: x6w1WykzH6sv6M-AnZGyW_fnujc Message-ID: To: Matt Corallo Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c14ce8c995670532521eea X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org X-Mailman-Approved-At: Sun, 08 May 2016 10:57:02 +0000 Cc: Bitcoin Dev Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Compact Block Relay BIP X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Development Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 08 May 2016 10:26:10 -0000 --001a11c14ce8c995670532521eea Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Interesting, can you provide some historical context around it so I understand better ? Actually I know that your relay's protocol (and about what I see in abstract) was about optimizing propagation time and not bandwidth. And I agree that bandwidth is what need to be optimized for nodes. So far there was two other proposal that I know only from name and theory which is xthin block and ILBT which would also have decreased bandwidth. Can you quickly describe how does it compares to them ? --001a11c14ce8c995670532521eea Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Interesting, can you provide some historical context aroun= d it so I understand better ?
Actually I know that your relay's pro= tocol (and about what I see in abstract) was about optimizing propagation t= ime and not bandwidth.

And I agree that bandwidth = is what need to be optimized for nodes.
So far there was two othe= r proposal that I know only from name and theory which is xthin block and I= LBT which would also have decreased bandwidth.=C2=A0

Can you quickly describe how does it compares to them ?

--001a11c14ce8c995670532521eea--