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
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
|
Return-Path: <adam@cypherspace.org>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0D342C00
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Mon, 14 Dec 2015 12:45:00 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mout.perfora.net (mout.perfora.net [74.208.4.196])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6B0021AF
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Mon, 14 Dec 2015 12:44:59 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from mail-ig0-f182.google.com ([209.85.213.182]) by
mrelay.perfora.net (mreueus002) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id
0LrLdC-1aDqly31Su-0137k6 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Mon, 14 Dec 2015 13:44:58 +0100
Received: by igbxm8 with SMTP id xm8so82457428igb.1
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Mon, 14 Dec 2015 04:44:58 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.50.92.41 with SMTP id cj9mr18181027igb.38.1450097098026;
Mon, 14 Dec 2015 04:44:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.36.49.200 with HTTP; Mon, 14 Dec 2015 04:44:57 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <3292B7BA-13A8-4BD9-AB08-4F5EBE534771@toom.im>
References: <CABsx9T0nxcqAkEt7+pVm9oZEZH_HCJ9D3J00v0bKJYeUcDv1hQ@mail.gmail.com>
<1449897228198.c655b3ae@Nodemailer>
<CAOG=w-t=+0Zdoy+d4Y2t9nbRkyO30N_Az9kbRarGo69yHCpSwA@mail.gmail.com>
<3292B7BA-13A8-4BD9-AB08-4F5EBE534771@toom.im>
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2015 20:44:57 +0800
X-Gmail-Original-Message-ID: <CALqxMTFz8Z6u1gRPzORYRiq_NTL_sMuFDd43MqQ+n26oTRZjBQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CALqxMTFz8Z6u1gRPzORYRiq_NTL_sMuFDd43MqQ+n26oTRZjBQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Adam Back <adam@cypherspace.org>
To: Jonathan Toomim <j@toom.im>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:A6VxHDfx7AtQYKuI721i7PXSyiPY8zA2mElzMSRwFUySgdSmr8r
GtIzeXGEPWofjTHFK2VMVgXDAkAt2dbn+ejfombxcuKM9+UdheUQGhoX0cET/bFJRLazMkP
TE+SETOQG0uh8jTn5nDmFCY0efqEFqkGjLdm80vtFxgkRy81VBAxlQ9wwUkVoRpctAS9WDY
lUvN+tmzv0D5Y8DceX+xw==
X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V01:K0:ITjrqp1MqFQ=:MZ5q1MIgC8LxAGdFBLXh9h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X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE
autolearn=ham version=3.3.1
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
smtp1.linux-foundation.org
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Capacity increases for the Bitcoin system.
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: Mon, 14 Dec 2015 12:45:00 -0000
I think someone, maybe Pieter, commented on this relay issue that it
would be likely very transitory, as a lot of stuff would be fairly
quickly upgraded in practice from previous deployment experience, and
I think anyway there is a huge excess connectivity and capacity in the
p2p network vs having a connected network of various versions, and
supporting SPV client load (SPV load is quite low relative to
capacity, even one respectable node can support a large number of SPV
clients).
(Ie so two classes of network node and connectivity wouldnt be a
problem in practice even if it did persist; also the higher capacity
better run nodes are more likely to upgrade due to having more clued
in power user, miner, pool or company operators).
Maybe someone more detailed knowledge could clarify further.
Adam
On 14 December 2015 at 19:21, Jonathan Toomim via bitcoin-dev
<bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> This means that a server supporting SW might only hear of the tx data and
> not get the signature data for some transactions, depending on how the re=
lay
> rules worked (e.g. if the SW peers had higher minrelaytxfee settings than
> the legacy peers). This would complicate fast block relay code like IBLTs=
,
> since we now have to check to see that the recipient has both the tx data
> and the witness/sig data.
>
> The same issue might happen with block relay if we do SW as a soft fork. =
A
> SW node might see a block inv from a legacy node first, and might start
> downloading the block from that node. This block would then be marked as
> in-flight, and the witness data might not get downloaded. This shouldn't =
be
> too hard to fix by creating an inv for the witness data as a separate
> object, so that a node could download the block from e.g. Peer 1 and the
> segwit data from Peer 2.
>
> Of course, the code would be simpler if we did this as a hard fork and we
> could rely on everyone on the segwit fork supporting the segwit data.
> Although maybe we want to write the interfaces in a way that supports som=
e
> nodes not downloading the segwit data anyway, just because not every node
> will want that data.
>
> I haven't had time to read sipa's code yet. I apologize for talking out o=
f a
> position of ignorance. For anyone who has, do you feel like sharing how i=
t
> deals with these network relay issues?
>
> By the way, since this thread is really about SegWit and not about any ot=
her
> mechanism for increasing Bitcoin capacity, perhaps we should rename it
> accordingly?
>
>
> On Dec 12, 2015, at 11:18 PM, Mark Friedenbach via bitcoin-dev
> <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
> A segwit supporting server would be required to support relaying segwit
> transactions, although a non-segwit server could at least inform a wallet=
of
> segwit txns observed, even if it doesn't relay all information necessary =
to
> validate.
>
> Non segwit servers and wallets would continue operations as if nothing ha=
d
> occurred.
>
> If this means essentially that a soft fork deployment of SegWit will requ=
ire
> SPV wallet servers to change their logic (or risk not being able to send
> payments) then it does seem to me that a hard fork to deploy this non
> controversial change is not only cleaner (on the data structure side) but
> safer in terms of the potential to affect the user experience.
>
>
> =E2=80=94 Regards,
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>
|
