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
|
Return-Path: <slashene@gmail.com>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 49D66411
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sun, 8 May 2016 10:26:10 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-qg0-f53.google.com (mail-qg0-f53.google.com
[209.85.192.53])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 92AEAAB
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sun, 8 May 2016 10:26:09 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-qg0-f53.google.com with SMTP id f74so76323740qge.2
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sun, 08 May 2016 03:26:09 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
h=mime-version:sender:from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc;
bh=CXZ9UCHAtoVRHV0u9YwMSxm4SY9CO1mh4ZsvgmlY5U8=;
b=BspsLPp/aIQ5ImOjVOmwBaaM5g4/XBRa7JPXYNQqy73O6LrB+wCYIuqS0bCtc5CbRH
KzDeHPhc3VAfmGvxvnT68H9fjTopH0FYTa05+acDwoZg8tIZs12Hgw6gIwCjLzVXoBbl
C+KQwEf0F9Cqe8+Vbsyul31301f3cyJO0RrtYCvpJHe5MRywYHZRldaPbgnpGy1J1ulP
FdKJraR5zvJDbHQQO61J3nPlGJwk1AIJfiXqXW2EzfxxbJ8e/VTX5L4lzspeWAGcuH0J
vegxv60tRJxSZeUtpHfewOLxWs3HhfI+rDI09OSbOni3oBbK7iv3CkHdZSvVo8KI4F01
eR8Q==
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:from:date:message-id:subject
:to:cc;
bh=CXZ9UCHAtoVRHV0u9YwMSxm4SY9CO1mh4ZsvgmlY5U8=;
b=RcS6USjADFjkh70yB2FcUhaM3VSDnlYTGtjxGhdgIltXnePZM8M9LiC8eclTupyaG8
YPB1WYN/eri42ldhAUUkWPGdIMBEa8ZcpnlLSNbxGfDrM6QmSrAnz6fzKt6U2D6kfie1
pVWQoTtLSocxrkn5AXjR/V3/2V6WUU68QM3b7SOxUU7zFt2qDvxsuQS8Yn9fmVUYk8A3
zs+CLucKr8zhu/B+M4Y0fwBaJ4HSZknNjXvA3PY/lsNUf6SpHBgB6JW6wzNeXUgQ0nz5
+IoLcLHAjWD0rZbpL9ecyPTV6Tyuzu/0syzG/0Y7wj6cZcP8kH1/9xxPvtFVggVaNn1O
mJOQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOPr4FXJoaGFjFL9w2gPEfUS5SCQKOsxtOA5kfQYy4tzSJ0No/61cExktnouluI+mHV6T2Nd89H0dlp5TVxemg==
X-Received: by 10.140.22.232 with SMTP id 95mr29165117qgn.24.1462703168784;
Sun, 08 May 2016 03:26:08 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: slashene@gmail.com
Received: by 10.55.92.7 with HTTP; Sun, 8 May 2016 03:25:49 -0700 (PDT)
From: Nicolas Dorier <nicolas.dorier@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 8 May 2016 19:25:49 +0900
X-Google-Sender-Auth: x6w1WykzH6sv6M-AnZGyW_fnujc
Message-ID: <CA+1nnrku0YLw60WVSPt41j7dz=+bwe3Fk7Vs0y6-_obgjq4i8Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: Matt Corallo <lf-lists@mattcorallo.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c14ce8c995670532521eea
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,
DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,HTML_MESSAGE,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
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Sun, 08 May 2016 10:57:02 +0000
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Compact Block Relay BIP
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: Sun, 08 May 2016 10:26:10 -0000
--001a11c14ce8c995670532521eea
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Interesting, can you provide some historical context around it so I
understand better ?
Actually I know that your relay's protocol (and about what I see in
abstract) was about optimizing propagation time and not bandwidth.
And I agree that bandwidth is what need to be optimized for nodes.
So far there was two other proposal that I know only from name and theory
which is xthin block and ILBT which would also have decreased bandwidth.
Can you quickly describe how does it compares to them ?
--001a11c14ce8c995670532521eea
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<div dir=3D"ltr">Interesting, can you provide some historical context aroun=
d it so I understand better ?<div>Actually I know that your relay's pro=
tocol (and about what I see in abstract) was about optimizing propagation t=
ime and not bandwidth.</div><div><br></div><div>And I agree that bandwidth =
is what need to be optimized for nodes.</div><div>So far there was two othe=
r proposal that I know only from name and theory which is xthin block and I=
LBT which would also have decreased bandwidth.=C2=A0</div><div><br></div><d=
iv>Can you quickly describe how does it compares to them ?</div><div><br></=
div></div>
--001a11c14ce8c995670532521eea--
|
