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
|
Received: from sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.194]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-3.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <gmaxwell@gmail.com>) id 1TB5h6-0002wp-J1
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Mon, 10 Sep 2012 15:14:36 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
designates 209.85.223.175 as permitted sender)
client-ip=209.85.223.175; envelope-from=gmaxwell@gmail.com;
helo=mail-ie0-f175.google.com;
Received: from mail-ie0-f175.google.com ([209.85.223.175])
by sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1TB5h1-0008JD-49
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Mon, 10 Sep 2012 15:14:36 +0000
Received: by iebc11 with SMTP id c11so3368865ieb.34
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Mon, 10 Sep 2012 08:14:25 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.50.45.234 with SMTP id q10mr11760037igm.33.1347290065799; Mon,
10 Sep 2012 08:14:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.64.56.66 with HTTP; Mon, 10 Sep 2012 08:14:25 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <BA7EEDEA-5A56-42F5-A43D-0D4C9CC99DBC@godofgod.co.uk>
References: <BA7EEDEA-5A56-42F5-A43D-0D4C9CC99DBC@godofgod.co.uk>
Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2012 11:14:25 -0400
Message-ID: <CAAS2fgTPLX+p_8eq8XTKHO-LsE+PgMs5SoDh=ho3wcdgCDXR6Q@mail.gmail.com>
From: Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell@gmail.com>
To: Matthew Mitchell <matthewmitchell@godofgod.co.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
X-Spam-Score: -0.7 (/)
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
0.9 AWL AWL: From: address is in the auto white-list
X-Headers-End: 1TB5h1-0008JD-49
Cc: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Segmented Block Relaying BIP draft.
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: Mon, 10 Sep 2012 15:14:36 -0000
On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 11:07 AM, Matthew Mitchell
<matthewmitchell@godofgod.co.uk> 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
Why does this focus on actually sending the hash tree? The block
header + transaction list + transactions a node doesn't already know
(often just the coinbase) is enough.
|
