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
|
Received: from sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.194]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-4.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <mh.in.england@gmail.com>) id 1WtEiE-0005bG-Pw
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Sat, 07 Jun 2014 11:23:02 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
designates 209.85.214.174 as permitted sender)
client-ip=209.85.214.174; envelope-from=mh.in.england@gmail.com;
helo=mail-ob0-f174.google.com;
Received: from mail-ob0-f174.google.com ([209.85.214.174])
by sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1WtEiD-0002x7-Sf
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Sat, 07 Jun 2014 11:23:02 +0000
Received: by mail-ob0-f174.google.com with SMTP id uz6so3971960obc.33
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Sat, 07 Jun 2014 04:22:56 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.182.144.161 with SMTP id sn1mr1495159obb.82.1402140176385;
Sat, 07 Jun 2014 04:22:56 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: mh.in.england@gmail.com
Received: by 10.76.71.162 with HTTP; Sat, 7 Jun 2014 04:22:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.76.71.162 with HTTP; Sat, 7 Jun 2014 04:22:56 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <20140606174545.GB29195@savin>
References: <20140606081933.GA29458@savin>
<20140606084852.GA30247@netbook.cypherspace.org>
<20140606090441.GA19256@savin>
<20140606104543.GA31085@netbook.cypherspace.org>
<20140606164639.GB14891@savin>
<CAAS2fgTKiPMPOazNTPL8+3Ov1xOj=H+yK3u+sd_pe=nyDSPgTw@mail.gmail.com>
<20140606170524.GA29195@savin>
<CAAS2fgT3CfJ9Lf2H2BYVfUeJoF0RBi+EMmAghj5G2vJPtahmjg@mail.gmail.com>
<20140606174545.GB29195@savin>
Date: Sat, 7 Jun 2014 19:22:56 +0800
X-Google-Sender-Auth: 6a59fDb-QFOJskA7Awg-CIO2I5Y
Message-ID: <CANEZrP0BEod6b5joJBMPDv_NAxAh9Kio3aniZ3sH6f9Q4nozpQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net>
To: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e0158ac78238c4404fb3d332d
X-Spam-Score: -0.5 (/)
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
(mh.in.england[at]gmail.com)
-0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record
1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message
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: 1WtEiD-0002x7-Sf
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Bloom bait
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, 07 Jun 2014 11:23:03 -0000
--089e0158ac78238c4404fb3d332d
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
You can send different bloom filters to different peers too, so I'm not
sure why you're listing subsetting as a unique advantage of prefix filters.
The main advantage of prefix filters seems to be faster lookups if the node
is calculating a sorted index for each block, and the utxo commitment
stuff, both of those would be cool but involve imposing extra costs on
nodes. We lack models that let us understand the tradeoffs involved in
various indexing schemes, I feel.
--089e0158ac78238c4404fb3d332d
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<p dir=3D"ltr">You can send different bloom filters to different peers too,=
so I'm not sure why you're listing subsetting as a unique advantag=
e of prefix filters.</p>
<p dir=3D"ltr">The main advantage of prefix filters seems to be faster look=
ups if the node is calculating a sorted index for each block, and the utxo =
commitment stuff, both of those would be cool but involve imposing extra co=
sts on nodes. We lack models that let us understand the tradeoffs involved =
in various indexing schemes, I feel. </p>
--089e0158ac78238c4404fb3d332d--
|
