Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2682BC87 for ; Wed, 4 Apr 2018 04:54:27 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-pl0-f49.google.com (mail-pl0-f49.google.com [209.85.160.49]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1D09F14F for ; Wed, 4 Apr 2018 04:54:26 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-pl0-f49.google.com with SMTP id bj1-v6so9972300plb.8 for ; Tue, 03 Apr 2018 21:54:26 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=date:from:to:message-id:in-reply-to:references:subject:mime-version; bh=PwH5+XH6lV7EiwRiHcOPm/XjpbfKjr7B7vR1mjx7ock=; b=um3+D9LtSCXd3IBwhmD+aUa2y5YtL3EUZ8K5JiFvuuQhzmZGtC9bELDztAdsb3mYM7 HSCcOL3u2DAWEm0bv+RLfR8+Cz/hFtTVajE6MK6O3HF380Iu6FQSN9zm1bQSug4hso/O by61xtJ68LPSfX7k1vOvxsiUjYbl8yKPxQUpMNJl/PVh7CEcKKpm0NIJMz0HoN78Yylb n/NmEdeVlzrwZLpTEt2ah3xvG6PxNbia/FOiWNgJv8QaCM7ynFfDedk3PiFu00hevjAz 4NpkKil47vq1RDRI7OUiDyS2A69DJSkxstaGssuCgQAOoIgG9a8XfdRBBuJivfS7m4y8 EgoA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:message-id:in-reply-to:references :subject:mime-version; bh=PwH5+XH6lV7EiwRiHcOPm/XjpbfKjr7B7vR1mjx7ock=; b=V0xXbssxq2P9wadp/QzpQOH0t9hYVxlzP/alz0FqyKdR0am+O4snKStHj64YxJ/9Ir vNjC7Cam84h4E0AcRUP+X8N4UvzRxqV1quKbeZJ8hIYNdUNMpEKli5Z1udP2LXhzqrLc 09/7FDtmb+03GK06otqUAyoL3B+VzdElJ8OUJfLmlS3h7pSmHz1TRD8PVqBqLy/Ee5GV 4RK/U6rw7FscdZUkZEa+RSRptmFlzo/U+rrXp9ByZ/ps/sfL+lSv4RT0GwGUFRPaMKmP PDWWxWj8RkhLO77jEPZfqrRGCaNJ1g3e6Rs5dXzY6TmI9tM0Z9YO/yLA1vTcJ3Ts/DCY wOqQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AElRT7EYlrCm08PRuATS51IbjjGUbjbzJRcWwU2+ZLWY/EgG4q9cX+SL 3DhfmMefJ1Hc80mbwjJ3UHnS2R5u X-Google-Smtp-Source: AIpwx4/MLhI+HWawCROmFb21iRBmF7Oh5uW6BJtBfQvq/E2BqxKXLNtKYyfQ0xAoRmNIFHpnJxztkw== X-Received: by 10.99.169.1 with SMTP id u1mr11270744pge.251.1522817665179; Tue, 03 Apr 2018 21:54:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.128.3.157] ([209.58.139.34]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id h2sm8839633pfd.119.2018.04.03.21.54.22 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 03 Apr 2018 21:54:23 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2018 21:55:45 -0700 From: Gleb Naumenko To: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion , Gregory Maxwell Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: <9ab6e32e-db51-4ce4-8f3c-3a77f7b1f9bd@Spark> X-Readdle-Message-ID: cdd7a34f-3cd5-4747-a3a1-3106d66c1928@Spark MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="5ac45ae0_440badfc_7d7e" X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.0 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, FREEMAIL_FROM, HTML_MESSAGE, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE 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: Wed, 04 Apr 2018 13:02:00 +0000 Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Low-bandwidth transaction relay X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2018 04:54:27 -0000 --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 , w= rote: > On Mon, Apr 2, 2018 at 10:18 PM, Gleb Naumenko via bitcoin-dev > 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
Thanks for the links=21&=23160;

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.
=

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>

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.

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.
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&= gt;, wrote:
On Mon, Apr 2, 2018 at 10:18 P= M, Gleb Naumenko via bitcoin-dev
<bitcoin-dev=40lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
Hi all,
I have a couple of ideas regarding transaction relay protocol and wanted = 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--