From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 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 ) id 1TB9CU-0005Zy-D6 for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Mon, 10 Sep 2012 18:59:14 +0000 X-ACL-Warn: Received: from zinan.dashjr.org ([173.242.112.54]) by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) id 1TB9CT-0001sb-Dq for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Mon, 10 Sep 2012 18:59:14 +0000 Received: from ishibashi.localnet (unknown [173.170.188.216]) (Authenticated sender: luke-jr) by zinan.dashjr.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A72CF27A2968; Mon, 10 Sep 2012 18:59:07 +0000 (UTC) From: "Luke-Jr" To: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2012 18:59:03 +0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.13.7 (Linux/3.4.10-gentoo-nestfix; KDE/4.8.3; x86_64; ; ) References: In-Reply-To: X-PGP-Key-Fingerprint: E463 A93F 5F31 17EE DE6C 7316 BD02 9424 21F4 889F X-PGP-Key-ID: BD02942421F4889F X-PGP-Keyserver: hkp://pgp.mit.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-15" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <201209101859.05009.luke@dashjr.org> X-Spam-Score: -0.4 (/) X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net. See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details. -0.4 RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay domain X-Headers-End: 1TB9CT-0001sb-Dq Cc: Matthew Mitchell 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 18:59:14 -0000 On Monday, September 10, 2012 3:07:52 PM 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 Most of the problem with block propagation lies in implementation, not protocol... Distributing missing transaction on an as-needed basis is a possible improvement at the protocol level, but there hasn't (AFAIK) been any research into whether the little benefit outweighs the cost yet. In any case, I don't see why 6 new messages are needed instead of simply adding a single new type to getinv?