Received: from sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.191]
	helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
	by sfs-ml-4.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
	(envelope-from <pw@vps7135.xlshosting.net>) id 1TR3zT-00045P-4a
	for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
	Wed, 24 Oct 2012 16:39:35 +0000
X-ACL-Warn: 
Received: from vps7135.xlshosting.net ([178.18.90.41])
	by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
	id 1TR3zN-0006of-5N for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
	Wed, 24 Oct 2012 16:39:35 +0000
Received: by vps7135.xlshosting.net (Postfix, from userid 1000)
	id 48105494008; Wed, 24 Oct 2012 18:22:57 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2012 18:22:56 +0200
From: Pieter Wuille <pieter.wuille@gmail.com>
To: Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net>
Message-ID: <20121024162255.GA30290@vps7135.xlshosting.net>
References: <CANEZrP0XALwBFJyZTzYd5xBp4MRrjv0s_y2tOXbO7UgjWF2HzA@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CANEZrP0XALwBFJyZTzYd5xBp4MRrjv0s_y2tOXbO7UgjWF2HzA@mail.gmail.com>
X-PGP-Key: http://sipa.ulyssis.org/pubkey.asc
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
X-Spam-Score: 0.5 (/)
X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net.
	See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details.
	0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider
	(pieter.wuille[at]gmail.com)
	0.0 DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED   No valid author signature, adsp_override is
	CUSTOM_MED
	-0.7 RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay
	domain 1.2 NML_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED    ADSP custom_med hit,
	and not from a mailing list
X-Headers-End: 1TR3zN-0006of-5N
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Draft BIP for Bloom filtering
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: Wed, 24 Oct 2012 16:39:35 -0000

On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 05:56:07PM +0200, Mike Hearn wrote:
> I've written a draft BIP describing the bloom filtering protocol
> extension developed by myself and Matt.
> 
> https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/BIP_0037
> 
> Please read it and let me know if there are any missing details or
> things which sound wrong.

Some questions:
* why limit the number of matching transactions to 255?
* what does "each hash and key in the output script" mean exactly? what about the output script in its entirety?
* is sharing parts of the merkle branches not worth it?

> Design-wise, it occurred to me as I wrote the BIP that the method of
> delaying reception of invs is a bit ad-hoc. It may be better to have a
> bloom filter be sent in the version message itself. On the other hand,
> having a flag to delay invs means that the filter can be calculated in
> parallel to bringing up the network connections. Whilst actually
> making a Bloom filter is fast, with deterministic wallets you may need
> to do a lot of calculations to find the keys to scan for.

I'm not in favor of stuffing too much into the version message, it already seems overloaded.
A byte with some bit-flags is fine by me - higher bits can later be added for other boolean
flags.

-- 
Pieter