Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2018 21:55:45 -0700
From: Gleb Naumenko <naumenko.gs@gmail.com>
To: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>, 
	Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <cdd7a34f-3cd5-4747-a3a1-3106d66c1928@Spark>
In-Reply-To: <CAAS2fgSYG+jrLM4=DXVpLTh9diMEbX0gWG-wC0-2gBRio+Lo0Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <9ab6e32e-db51-4ce4-8f3c-3a77f7b1f9bd@Spark>
	<CAAS2fgSYG+jrLM4=DXVpLTh9diMEbX0gWG-wC0-2gBRio+Lo0Q@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="5ac45ae0_440badfc_7d7e"
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Low-bandwidth transaction relay
Precedence: list

--5ac45ae0_440badfc_7d7e
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

Thanks for the links=21

Blocksonly is definitely a relevant piece. However, I=E2=80=99m wondering=
 what are the implications, especially at larger scale. =46or example, tr=
ansactions processing will be not smooth anymore and will happen every 10=
 minutes at once. Another question is transaction propagation.

I think what I=E2=80=99ve proposed does not have those implications. Well=
, propagation is still a concern, but it=E2=80=99s not that extreme. One =
weakness of my idea is relative complexity comparing to blocksonly.

Another variation of the idea I described might work without INVs at all =
=C2=A0(then N=3D1 and transactions are relayed through 1 link only, durin=
g the time between blocks) and it would have the same security assumption=
s as blocksonly.

Your IBLT and BCH-sets proposals sound very promising. I had something li=
ke that on mind, but I decided to start with a more conservative protocol=
.
It looks like sync-relay idea has a lot of interesting questions, I=E2=80=
=99m excited to follow that research.

On Apr 3, 2018, 12:04 PM -0700, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell=40gmail.com>, w=
rote:
> On Mon, Apr 2, 2018 at 10:18 PM, Gleb Naumenko via bitcoin-dev
> <bitcoin-dev=40lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> > Hi all,
> > I have a couple of ideas regarding transaction relay protocol and wan=
ted to
> > share it with and probably get some feedback.
>
>
>
> https://bitcointalk.org/index.php=3Ftopic=3D1377345.0
>
> https://people.xiph.org/=7Egreg/mempool=5Fsync=5Frelay.txt

--5ac45ae0_440badfc_7d7e
Content-Type: text/html; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

<html xmlns=3D=22http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml=22>
<head>
<title></title>
</head>
<body>
<div name=3D=22messageBodySection=22 style=3D=22font-size: 14px; font-fam=
ily: -apple-system, BlinkMacSystem=46ont, sans-serif;=22>
<div>Thanks for the links=21&=23160;</div>
<div><br /></div>
<div>Blocksonly is definitely a relevant piece. However, I=E2=80=99m wond=
ering what are the implications, especially at larger scale. =46or exampl=
e, transactions processing will be not smooth anymore and will happen eve=
ry 10 minutes at once. Another question is transaction propagation.</div>=

<div><br /></div>
<div>I think what I=E2=80=99ve proposed does not have those implications.=
 Well, propagation is still a concern, but it=E2=80=99s not that extreme.=
 One weakness of my idea is relative complexity comparing to blocksonly.<=
/div>
<div><br /></div>
<div>Another variation of the idea I described might work without INVs at=
 all &=23160;(then N=3D1 and transactions are relayed through 1 link only=
, during the time between blocks) and it would have the same security ass=
umptions as blocksonly.</div>
<div><br /></div>
<div>Your IBLT and BCH-sets proposals sound very promising. I had somethi=
ng like that on mind, but I decided to start with a more conservative pro=
tocol.</div>
<div>It looks like sync-relay idea has a lot of interesting questions, I=E2=
=80=99m excited to follow that research.</div>
</div>
<div name=3D=22messageReplySection=22 style=3D=22font-size: 14px; font-fa=
mily: -apple-system, BlinkMacSystem=46ont, sans-serif;=22><br />
On Apr 3, 2018, 12:04 PM -0700, Gregory Maxwell &lt;gmaxwell=40gmail.com&=
gt;, wrote:<br />
<blockquote type=3D=22cite=22 style=3D=22margin: 5px 5px; padding-left: 1=
0px; border-left: thin solid =231abc9c;=22>On Mon, Apr 2, 2018 at 10:18 P=
M, Gleb Naumenko via bitcoin-dev<br />
&lt;bitcoin-dev=40lists.linuxfoundation.org&gt; wrote:<br />
<blockquote type=3D=22cite=22 style=3D=22margin: 5px 5px; padding-left: 1=
0px; border-left: thin solid =23e67e22;=22>Hi all,<br />
I have a couple of ideas regarding transaction relay protocol and wanted =
to<br />
share it with and probably get some feedback.<br /></blockquote>
<br />
<br />
<br />
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php=3Ftopic=3D1377345.0<br />
<br />
https://people.xiph.org/=7Egreg/mempool=5Fsync=5Frelay.txt<br /></blockqu=
ote>
<div></div>
</div>
</body>
</html>

--5ac45ae0_440badfc_7d7e--