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
|
Received: from sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.191]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-1.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <bitcoin-list@bluematt.me>) id 1TR6C6-0005Sx-9I
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Wed, 24 Oct 2012 19:00:46 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of bluematt.me
designates 173.246.101.161 as permitted sender)
client-ip=173.246.101.161;
envelope-from=bitcoin-list@bluematt.me; helo=mail.bluematt.me;
Received: from vps.bluematt.me ([173.246.101.161] helo=mail.bluematt.me)
by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
id 1TR6C0-0006RC-QW for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Wed, 24 Oct 2012 19:00:46 +0000
Received: from [152.23.59.110] (mid-campus-dhcp00360.wireless.unc.edu
[152.23.59.110])
by mail.bluematt.me (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id DB31E4C41
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Wed, 24 Oct 2012 19:00:34 +0000 (UTC)
Message-ID: <1351105233.4731.3.camel@localhost.localdomain>
From: Matt Corallo <bitcoin-list@bluematt.me>
To: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2012 15:00:33 -0400
In-Reply-To: <CABsx9T0JyFJKLWK09NEzDk6B9Z2Yz7T55kf8GJ2o3ViCnBpRAw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CANEZrP0XALwBFJyZTzYd5xBp4MRrjv0s_y2tOXbO7UgjWF2HzA@mail.gmail.com>
<20121024162255.GA30290@vps7135.xlshosting.net>
<CANEZrP1sxtOb+czMtBTkmzngEwMYRqD667WyKQkAOKLi+mGBGQ@mail.gmail.com>
<20121024171104.GA31766@vps7135.xlshosting.net>
<CABsx9T0JyFJKLWK09NEzDk6B9Z2Yz7T55kf8GJ2o3ViCnBpRAw@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
X-Mailer: Evolution 3.4.4
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Spam-Score: -1.9 (-)
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
0.4 NO_DNS_FOR_FROM DNS: Envelope sender has no MX or A DNS records
-0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record
-0.7 RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay
domain
X-Headers-End: 1TR6C0-0006RC-QW
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Draft BIP for Bloom filtering
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: Wed, 24 Oct 2012 19:00:46 -0000
On Wed, 2012-10-24 at 14:54 -0400, Gavin Andresen wrote:
> RE: sharing parts of the merkle branches when returning a 'merkleblock' :
>
> I think I agree that complicating the BIP for what should be a very
> rare case (more than a handful of transactions in a block match the
> transactions in your wallet) is the right decision.
I believe you meant NOT complicating?
>
> I want to make sure I'm understanding this bit correctly:
>
> "In addition, because a merkleblock message contains only a list of
> transaction hashes, any transactions that the requesting node hasn't
> either received or announced with an inv will be automatically sent as
> well. This avoids a slow roundtrip that would otherwise be required
> (receive hashes, didn't see some of these transactions yet, ask for
> them)."
>
> Requiring serving/relaying nodes to keep track of which transactions
> they have or have not sent to their peers makes me nervous. I think
> requiring an extra 'inv' round-trip would be simpler to implement and
> less likely to lead to some kind of DoS attack.
>
Sadly that requires (potentially) more DoS potential because you require
nodes to store each transaction that could be requested instead of just
going ahead and forwarding them. I agree the BIP should not specify
that the sending node is required to keep track of which transactions
have been announced/sent to clients, however since the reference client
does so currently, that implementation is significantly simpler (note
that it is a bounded set in the reference client, so even the reference
client doesn't really fully comply with the BIP as stated here).
Matt
|
