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
|
Received: from sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.191]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-3.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <abrutschy@xylon.de>) id 1Yqj8R-0004CV-Bs
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Fri, 08 May 2015 14:20:15 +0000
X-ACL-Warn:
Received: from ds87-230-39-135.dedicated.hosteurope.de ([87.230.39.135]
helo=mail.xylon.de)
by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256)
(Exim 4.76) id 1Yqj8P-0006Yx-Mj
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Fri, 08 May 2015 14:20:15 +0000
Received: from mail.xylon.de (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by mail.xylon.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 60F6D8A007A
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Fri, 8 May 2015 16:01:02 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [192.168.178.47]
(dslb-178-004-217-036.178.004.pools.vodafone-ip.de [178.4.217.36])
(using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits))
(No client certificate requested)
by mail.xylon.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 240918A0077
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Fri, 8 May 2015 16:01:02 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <554CC19D.2010306@xylon.de>
Date: Fri, 08 May 2015 16:01:01 +0200
From: Arne Brutschy <abrutschy@xylon.de>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64;
rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-AV-Checked: ClamAV using ClamSMTP
X-Spam-Score: -0.1 (/)
X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net.
See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details.
-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: 1Yqj8P-0006Yx-Mj
Subject: [Bitcoin-development] Removing transaction data from blocks
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: Fri, 08 May 2015 14:20:15 -0000
Hello,
At DevCore London, Gavin mentioned the idea that we could get rid of
sending full blocks. Instead, newly minted blocks would only be
distributed as block headers plus all hashes of the transactions
included in the block. The assumption would be that nodes have already
the majority of these transactions in their mempool.
The advantages are clear: it's more efficient, as we would send
transactions only once over the network, and it's fast as the resulting
blocks would be small. Moreover, we would get rid of the blocksize limit
for a long time.
Unfortunately, I am too ignorant of bitcoin core's internals to judge
the changes required to make this happen. (I guess we'd require a new
block format and a way to bulk-request missing transactions.)
However, I'm curious to hear what others with a better grasp of bitcoin
core's internals have to say about it.
Regards,
Arne
|
