Received: from sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.194] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-1.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1TR65u-0004vO-0n for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Wed, 24 Oct 2012 18:54:22 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com designates 74.125.82.175 as permitted sender) client-ip=74.125.82.175; envelope-from=gavinandresen@gmail.com; helo=mail-we0-f175.google.com; Received: from mail-we0-f175.google.com ([74.125.82.175]) by sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1TR65t-0006zC-8n for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Wed, 24 Oct 2012 18:54:21 +0000 Received: by mail-we0-f175.google.com with SMTP id t44so477486wey.34 for ; Wed, 24 Oct 2012 11:54:15 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.216.200.150 with SMTP id z22mr9648540wen.97.1351104855107; Wed, 24 Oct 2012 11:54:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.194.27.136 with HTTP; Wed, 24 Oct 2012 11:54:15 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20121024171104.GA31766@vps7135.xlshosting.net> References: <20121024162255.GA30290@vps7135.xlshosting.net> <20121024171104.GA31766@vps7135.xlshosting.net> Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2012 14:54:15 -0400 Message-ID: From: Gavin Andresen To: Pieter Wuille Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Spam-Score: -1.5 (-) 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 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider (gavinandresen[at]gmail.com) -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record -0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from author's domain 0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not necessarily valid -0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature 0.1 AWL AWL: From: address is in the auto white-list X-Headers-End: 1TR65t-0006zC-8n Cc: Bitcoin Dev 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: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2012 18:54:22 -0000 RE: sharing parts of the merkle branches when returning a 'merkleblock' : I think I agree that complicating the BIP for what should be a very rare case (more than a handful of transactions in a block match the transactions in your wallet) is the right decision. I want to make sure I'm understanding this bit correctly: "In addition, because a merkleblock message contains only a list of transaction hashes, any transactions that the requesting node hasn't either received or announced with an inv will be automatically sent as well. This avoids a slow roundtrip that would otherwise be required (receive hashes, didn't see some of these transactions yet, ask for them)." Requiring serving/relaying nodes to keep track of which transactions they have or have not sent to their peers makes me nervous. I think requiring an extra 'inv' round-trip would be simpler to implement and less likely to lead to some kind of DoS attack. -- -- Gavin Andresen