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
|
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 <bitcoin-list@bluematt.me>) id 1TBA3F-0003Lb-7i
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Mon, 10 Sep 2012 19:53:45 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-4.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-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
id 1TBA3E-0001HN-0f for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Mon, 10 Sep 2012 19:53:45 +0000
Received: from [192.168.1.2] (dhcp00757.north-resnet.unc.edu [152.23.202.249])
by mail.bluematt.me (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 99B434930
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Mon, 10 Sep 2012 19:53:38 +0000 (UTC)
Message-ID: <1347306813.1419.20.camel@localhost.localdomain>
From: Matt Corallo <bitcoin-list@bluematt.me>
To: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2012 15:53:33 -0400
In-Reply-To: <239CFE18-302F-47F1-8686-67297FDDFB3C@godofgod.co.uk>
References: <BA7EEDEA-5A56-42F5-A43D-0D4C9CC99DBC@godofgod.co.uk>
<201209101859.05009.luke@dashjr.org>
<239CFE18-302F-47F1-8686-67297FDDFB3C@godofgod.co.uk>
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
-0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record
-0.4 RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay
domain
X-Headers-End: 1TBA3E-0001HN-0f
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 19:53:45 -0000
It seems to me the whole idea of segmenting blocks would add very little
(to nothing) with any sane block size. Sure, if a block were to be
10GB, it may make sense. However, even in that case, it would be easier
to relay a list of tx hashes (which may be a bit expensive) and txes
separately instead of using a notion of block segments. That said, I
don't see blocks ever being that large and if they do become that large,
as only a few full nodes will remain, upgrading their protocol would be
(relatively) easy. I would instead encourage focus on decreasing block
relay times for the current network and as blocks approach 10MB (so that
they can approach 10MB).
Matt
On Mon, 2012-09-10 at 20:34 +0100, Matthew Mitchell wrote:
> Do you mean getdata? Here is the reason for the 6 new messages:
>
>
> getseginv,seginv - These are for learning about what segments of a
> block a node has. Else you could remove these messages and simply have
> nodes advertise blocks via inventory messages. In this case nodes
> would have to wait until they had fully received a block before
> relaying anything. No longer is there a benefit with nodes being able
> to relay segments of blocks before they have received the entire
> block.
>
>
> gettreelevel,treelevel - These are to received a level of
> the merle tree. Instead you might use get data but gettreelevel is
> more compact than get data and is clearly differentiates itself as
> part of the new protocol. Perhaps these messages could include the
> block headers alongside the hashes and you could request many at once
> like with the getheaders message? If you skip these messages, then you
> could verify the transactions at the end but there would be problems
> when peers give bad segments where data would need to be downloaded
> again.
>
>
> getsegment,segment - These are clearly important to request and
> receive segments for the blocks. These allows for nodes
> to download arbitrary segments of blocks. The optimum number of
> segments could be calculated by node software using measurements of
> download speeds and latency times, the number of connections and how
> likely redundancy is to occur. If a node is up-to-date and likely has
> many of the transactions in blocks, it can start asking for the
> deepest merle level (tx hashes) and ask nodes for segments, avoiding
> transactions it already has.
>
>
> I'll get around to doing measurements myself sometime to estimate the
> benefit of this proposal. It will certainly be beneficial when block
> sizes reach some size but not much is really known except what can be
> assumed/guessed.
>
>
> I should also mention the bitcointalk topic
> here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=103295.0
>
> On 10 Sep 2012, at 19:59, "Luke-Jr" <luke@dashjr.org> wrote:
> >
> > Most of the problem with block propagation lies in implementation,
> > not
> > protocol... Distributing missing transaction on an as-needed basis
> > is a
> > possible improvement at the protocol level, but there hasn't (AFAIK)
> > been any
> > research into whether the little benefit outweighs the cost yet. In
> > any case,
> > I don't see why 6 new messages are needed instead of simply adding a
> > single
> > new type to getinv?
|
