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
|
Received: from sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.192]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-4.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <mh.in.england@gmail.com>) id 1TR3JX-0000ls-3m
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Wed, 24 Oct 2012 15:56:15 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
designates 74.125.82.53 as permitted sender)
client-ip=74.125.82.53; envelope-from=mh.in.england@gmail.com;
helo=mail-wg0-f53.google.com;
Received: from mail-wg0-f53.google.com ([74.125.82.53])
by sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1TR3JW-0006Ix-07
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Wed, 24 Oct 2012 15:56:15 +0000
Received: by mail-wg0-f53.google.com with SMTP id dr1so416691wgb.10
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Wed, 24 Oct 2012 08:56:07 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.180.106.9 with SMTP id gq9mr6924774wib.12.1351094167707; Wed,
24 Oct 2012 08:56:07 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: mh.in.england@gmail.com
Received: by 10.216.236.30 with HTTP; Wed, 24 Oct 2012 08:56:07 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2012 17:56:07 +0200
X-Google-Sender-Auth: YoGx2eB_ikGJ-OJmIxtrPIV4CxQ
Message-ID: <CANEZrP0XALwBFJyZTzYd5xBp4MRrjv0s_y2tOXbO7UgjWF2HzA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net>
To: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
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
(mh.in.england[at]gmail.com)
-0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record
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: 1TR3JW-0006Ix-07
Subject: [Bitcoin-development] Draft BIP for Bloom filtering
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: Wed, 24 Oct 2012 15:56:15 -0000
I've written a draft BIP describing the bloom filtering protocol
extension developed by myself and Matt.
https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/BIP_0037
(yes I know there's some kind of process around getting allocated a
number - it seems overkill for this).
Please read it and let me know if there are any missing details or
things which sound wrong.
Design-wise, it occurred to me as I wrote the BIP that the method of
delaying reception of invs is a bit ad-hoc. It may be better to have a
bloom filter be sent in the version message itself. On the other hand,
having a flag to delay invs means that the filter can be calculated in
parallel to bringing up the network connections. Whilst actually
making a Bloom filter is fast, with deterministic wallets you may need
to do a lot of calculations to find the keys to scan for.
|
