From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.194] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-4.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1TB6rf-0002C2-HR for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Mon, 10 Sep 2012 16:29:35 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of bluematt.me designates 173.246.101.161 as permitted sender) client-ip=173.246.101.161; envelope-from=bitcoin-list@bluematt.me; helo=mail.bluematt.me; Received: from vps.bluematt.me ([173.246.101.161] helo=mail.bluematt.me) by sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) id 1TB6rb-0004pf-Jc for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Mon, 10 Sep 2012 16:29:35 +0000 Received: from [152.23.19.209] (mid-campus-04018.wireless.unc.edu [152.23.19.209]) by mail.bluematt.me (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 5EF954931 for ; Mon, 10 Sep 2012 16:29:26 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <1347294397.1419.4.camel@localhost.localdomain> From: Matt Corallo To: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Mime-Version: 1.0 Resent-From: Matt Corallo Resent-To: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2012 12:29:20 -0400 X-Mailer: Evolution 3.4.4 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: -1.9 (-) 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 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record -0.4 RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay domain X-Headers-End: 1TB6rb-0004pf-Jc Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Segmented Block Relaying BIP draft. 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: Mon, 10 Sep 2012 16:29:35 -0000 I actually implemented parts of the header+ v stuff in a branch with my bloom filter stuff, you can see it here: https://github.com/TheBlueMatt/bitcoin/commits/bloom%2Brelayblock Its pretty stupid and would be pretty easy to DoS/get it stuck/etc, but in theory it works. I don't see much reason why we'd need anything significantly more complicated, but maybe there is a use-case I'm missing? Matt On Mon, 2012-09-10 at 11:14 -0400, Gregory Maxwell wrote: > On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 11:07 AM, Matthew Mitchell > wrote: > > Here is a BIP draft for improving the block relaying and validation so that > > it can be done in parallel and so that redundancy can be removed. This > > becomes more beneficial the larger the block sizes are. > > > > https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/User:MatthewLM/ImprovedBlockRelayingProposal > > Why does this focus on actually sending the hash tree? The block > header + transaction list + transactions a node doesn't already know > (often just the coinbase) is enough.