Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 62A2BCF3 for ; Sun, 13 Dec 2015 20:55:12 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from ozlabs.org (ozlabs.org [103.22.144.67]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A4B64117 for ; Sun, 13 Dec 2015 20:55:11 +0000 (UTC) Received: by ozlabs.org (Postfix, from userid 1011) id 688E014030D; Mon, 14 Dec 2015 07:55:09 +1100 (AEDT) From: Rusty Russell To: Jannes Faber , Bitcoin Dev In-Reply-To: References: <7D7416E3-0038-484D-BBA9-35FA4C2AE3DC@bitsofproof.com> User-Agent: Notmuch/0.20.2 (http://notmuchmail.org) Emacs/24.5.1 (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2015 07:04:48 +1030 Message-ID: <874mfmgk9j.fsf@rustcorp.com.au> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD 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: Mon, 14 Dec 2015 05:27:28 +0000 Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Segregated Witness features wish list X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Development Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 13 Dec 2015 20:55:12 -0000 Jannes Faber via bitcoin-dev writes: > Segregated IBLT > > I was just wondering if it would make sense when we have SW to also make > Segregated IBLT? Segregating transactions from signatures and then tune the > parameters such that transactions have a slightly higher guarantee and save > a bit of space on the signatures side. It just falls out naturally. If the peer doesn't want the witnesses, they don't get serialized into the IBLT. Cheers, Rusty.