1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
|
Return-Path: <gmaxwell@gmail.com>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AABD21240
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Wed, 17 Feb 2016 02:43:03 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-io0-f174.google.com (mail-io0-f174.google.com
[209.85.223.174])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2D8E0163
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Wed, 17 Feb 2016 02:43:03 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-io0-f174.google.com with SMTP id z135so17445198iof.0
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Tue, 16 Feb 2016 18:43:03 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject
:from:to:content-type;
bh=tcCLUuzbCu0P35eCv62Fx8ovXaU50amK7YGFrNdxim4=;
b=PIiivooywjTGPug98qLyp+M6DEQ1DvJ8X8fJi5Fl5mn7w9q8NTcpPqQda22BREalXh
BT+Hz9cB6ewjNGPaqkP7N5IZ/c77cKOwoqPJHT4mNc+OIQhLxy88wWgCY1kGDT0UBrPO
L5bmKYIn9mbcHrnLsGGmfvGAxgbVgQ1uGKGT58uTCfhzbz4u1pZqtcd71uU0zwSvAGYy
YybSIbS9gDwsVnaONc3q1iEPfxcFczcekTsF3IckXKvGY3jJBxHR7JiUAWHRJHPnh3oo
J/Lk/SRGfdg+43ARkLmblzAjmtz1QtTx19T7TaGrPwjKlcw7VdfD6kWZ7nGiIRc+ZYyQ
yatQ==
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:in-reply-to:references:date
:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type;
bh=tcCLUuzbCu0P35eCv62Fx8ovXaU50amK7YGFrNdxim4=;
b=eibf5rJPsBzpUE88TVI/AyccFst46TL9NaiAQiIrUjJnjBUnGyntoKsZqa0TjAESrE
ZKkD7NQcOOznjQkiOeqfuHZg3dzp6+hu8gqXHHyXdxVMExDKpVCmeEBsOaoCy0WOIuOz
9nbRbl8YNXZ1X1GyjpVx4hAxpeY3f3jGlMy87+RqCZPcA2aELh8asia77o8OG0r4OBrp
3qY8gbNheNKMZfzpOgYUTvICaS/EMUVLH9W2UYufMjlgQmqzGQQa0cemWbt8+6O96Di6
QCr5T0RmKiyqxcHVFSXMqT0iCHv2eUe8kNStfOOhP6iKrZgQI/79hywVwJdMwvgBFjRN
rcwg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AG10YOR+YsZ/S8x2CcXmTEUM0/qR6PR9/kt0XbDFnCXGW9JGnEqZe5QLAROBELOhS5noyc++JjOimn7KVX9Mkg==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.107.132.142 with SMTP id o14mr768906ioi.75.1455676982728;
Tue, 16 Feb 2016 18:43:02 -0800 (PST)
Sender: gmaxwell@gmail.com
Received: by 10.107.132.75 with HTTP; Tue, 16 Feb 2016 18:43:02 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <201602170046.17166.luke@dashjr.org>
References: <CAPWm=eXi98cC0KP=5WayU05hezDFswrPe+vA58cTHvVLc80OzQ@mail.gmail.com>
<201602170046.17166.luke@dashjr.org>
Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2016 02:43:02 +0000
X-Google-Sender-Auth: NGEApIQ-_iCuMKLPRVXNHSySg2M
Message-ID: <CAAS2fgR5uQbiXPFVa_NM_=1B2uM4GAPoF+RDrE32ENv6ODCrAw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Gregory Maxwell <greg@xiph.org>
To: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,
DKIM_VALID, FREEMAIL_FROM, 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
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] [BIP Proposal] New "feefilter" p2p message
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Bitcoin Development Discussion <bitcoin-dev.lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/options/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2016 02:43:03 -0000
On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 12:46 AM, Luke Dashjr via bitcoin-dev
<bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> On Tuesday, February 16, 2016 8:20:26 PM Alex Morcos via bitcoin-dev wrote:
>> # The feefilter message is defined as a message containing an int64_t where
>> pchCommand == "feefilter"
>
> What happened to extensibility?
I did think it might be interesting to do a priorityrate filter. but
since it seems no one is even working on adding an index for ancestor
priorityrate... or working on a space limited priority mempool... if
that extension would be needed it could just be a new "priorityfilt"
command.
> And why waste 64 bits for what is almost
> certainly a small number?
Technically fees per byte could be greater than 32 bits (e.g. a 9000
BTC fee is enough). Values are normally 64 bits already.
>> # The fee filter is additive with a bloom filter for transactions so if an
>> SPV client were to load a bloom filter and send a feefilter message,
>> transactions would only be relayed if they passed both filters.
>
> This seems to make feefilter entirely useless for wallets?
I think your reasoning is that you want to learn of your own
transactions even if they don't meet the filter?
I'm not sure this reasoning plays out though-- regardless of what your
own feefilter is, if a tx has too low a rate for your peers to relay
it, they won't and you won't learn of it.
I might wave my hands at a use case for OR "I will relay very high fee
txn ... or my own"; but considering that performance/privacy disaster
that bloom filters are-- and that to relay third party txn at all you
need to be able to validate them (or will get yourself banned). Also,
if you really want the OR behavior you could make two connections...
the same cannot be said for and.
Maybe one argument I could add is that if we added a priorityrate
filter, that one would be an OR
|
