1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
|
Received: from sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.193]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-3.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <el33th4x0r@gmail.com>) id 1X8Kyh-0002w8-L3
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Sat, 19 Jul 2014 03:06:27 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
designates 209.85.219.48 as permitted sender)
client-ip=209.85.219.48; envelope-from=el33th4x0r@gmail.com;
helo=mail-oa0-f48.google.com;
Received: from mail-oa0-f48.google.com ([209.85.219.48])
by sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1X8Kyg-0002KI-RH
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Sat, 19 Jul 2014 03:06:27 +0000
Received: by mail-oa0-f48.google.com with SMTP id m1so4536229oag.21
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Fri, 18 Jul 2014 20:06:21 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.182.20.135 with SMTP id n7mr12917041obe.36.1405739181298;
Fri, 18 Jul 2014 20:06:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.76.23.193 with HTTP; Fri, 18 Jul 2014 20:06:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.76.23.193 with HTTP; Fri, 18 Jul 2014 20:06:21 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAAS2fgSfpTmNcexSV6U3wvbdddqZ8Pb0WVYh35jqNkJCMRbBkw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CA+iPb=EaX=bvOjNtZ+LnYTMRLQQ9nFcrefAkBdv8eActoX_b8A@mail.gmail.com>
<CABsx9T0ag_o_mu=5Q7Ju7s2hO3jz-o5g9FihE9h4B6+ednd2Pg@mail.gmail.com>
<CAJHLa0NZRF+1QjSwtwjaTE07NWJ_U-O-DE24=P5eSAutMqTupg@mail.gmail.com>
<CABsx9T2BDBNqvinVNk3FmBRWU7R8jf6Vm6NaH74te0FRCh1O-w@mail.gmail.com>
<CAJHLa0O=eCoyvV19dWgTnYd9Di0wLLZtWmCPidc-dWqPNQv_oQ@mail.gmail.com>
<CA+iPb=H2fkjCxS7-hYqHjFzfMh6onk5RqZMxa8zsXeTn6pQMpA@mail.gmail.com>
<CAJHLa0NRUdAPuKXgKDBmXOs9to7gMpHv9ECCz_hTfZpg7SVVJA@mail.gmail.com>
<CA+iPb=HhGkiuaAxQMvpDpUdeU0uA5unPa_0uHGkS3LrmJzEnyQ@mail.gmail.com>
<CA+iPb=FZS9FxP9uYWHTzLpSVJ2uaOwr4dTQSvYuJjhVYCcJOew@mail.gmail.com>
<CAJHLa0MSdafZiXNH_L8qqH63n3wP5hb0R=EX3SJtsD40Fq_VOA@mail.gmail.com>
<CAPkFh0uuo=vOiLVTvozPiO7L26A4DpJ9nrKGeQZ+DC6HbO27TQ@mail.gmail.com>
<CAAS2fgSfpTmNcexSV6U3wvbdddqZ8Pb0WVYh35jqNkJCMRbBkw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2014 23:06:21 -0400
Message-ID: <CAPkFh0thLcaAPaa7Xswu2vSxossRDziMCoStzTDWw+e0c3WqTw@mail.gmail.com>
From: =?UTF-8?Q?Emin_G=C3=BCn_Sirer?= <el33th4x0r@gmail.com>
To: Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=e89a8f83a7c98c5a7f04fe8328d9
X-Spam-Score: -0.6 (/)
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
(el33th4x0r[at]gmail.com)
-0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record
1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message
-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
X-Headers-End: 1X8Kyg-0002KI-RH
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Squashing redundant tx data in blocks on
the wire
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: Sat, 19 Jul 2014 03:06:27 -0000
--e89a8f83a7c98c5a7f04fe8328d9
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
> Most things I've seen working in this space are attempting to minimize
> the data transfered. At least for the miner-interested case the round
> complexity is much more important because a single RTT is enough to
> basically send the whole block on a lot of very relevant paths.
Agreed. Yaron's scheme is magical because it is non-interactive. I send you
a packet of O(expected-delta) and you immediately figure out the delta
without further back and forth communication, each requiring an RTT.
> I know much better is possible (see up-thread where I linked to an old
> proposal to use forward error correction to transfer with low data
> transfer (but not optimal) and negligible probability of needing a
> round-trip, with a tradeoff for more overhead for lower roundtrip
> probability).
FEC schemes are both fairly complex, because the set is constantly
changing, and (if i understand your suggestion correctly) they add
additional metadata overhead (albeit mostly during tx propagation). Set
reconciliation is near optimal.
In any case, I have no horse here (I think changing the client so it's
multithreaded is the best way to go), but Yaron's work is pretty cool and
may be applicable.
- egs
--e89a8f83a7c98c5a7f04fe8328d9
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
<p dir="ltr"><br>
> Most things I've seen working in this space are attempting to minimize<br>
> the data transfered. At least for the miner-interested case the round<br>
> complexity is much more important because a single RTT is enough to<br>
> basically send the whole block on a lot of very relevant paths.</p>
<p dir="ltr">Agreed. Yaron's scheme is magical because it is non-interactive. I send you a packet of O(expected-delta) and you immediately figure out the delta without further back and forth communication, each requiring an RTT.</p>
<p dir="ltr">> I know much better is possible (see up-thread where I linked to an old<br>
> proposal to use forward error correction to transfer with low data<br>
> transfer (but not optimal) and negligible probability of needing a<br>
> round-trip, with a tradeoff for more overhead for lower roundtrip<br>
> probability).</p>
<p dir="ltr">FEC schemes are both fairly complex, because the set is constantly changing, and (if i understand your suggestion correctly) they add additional metadata overhead (albeit mostly during tx propagation). Set reconciliation is near optimal. </p>
<p dir="ltr">In any case, I have no horse here (I think changing the client so it's multithreaded is the best way to go), but Yaron's work is pretty cool and may be applicable.</p>
<p dir="ltr">- egs</p>
--e89a8f83a7c98c5a7f04fe8328d9--
|
