Re: [Bitcoin-development] Draft BIP for Bloom filtering

[Pieter Wuille <pieter.wuille@gmail.com>]

On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 01:38:37PM -0500, Matt Corallo wrote:
> On Wed, 2012-11-21 at 16:15 +0100, Pieter Wuille wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 05:56:07PM +0200, Mike Hearn wrote:
> > > I've written a draft BIP describing the bloom filtering protocol
> > > extension developed by myself and Matt.
> > > 
> > > https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/BIP_0037
> > 
> > Two comments I made on the pullreq page, which are probably better discussed here:
> > * The 0xFFFFFFFF/(n-1)*i seed value seems intended to result in large bit
> >   differences between the different hash function's seeds. Together with the tweak,
> >   however, the first and the last now get seeds tweak and tweak-1. I think
> >   something simpler like k1*i+k2*n+tweak is better (with k1 and k2 arbitrary large
> >   odd 32-bit integers).
> Meh, sure, whatever...I dont really think the seed values matter
> significantly (Murmur3 isnt that bad of a hash function...) (and the
> original algorithm wont result in a significant bit difference between
> the seeds in many cases).

Sure, it's nothing important, but it seems like it fails to do what it was intended for.

How about just this: tweak + i*0xFBA4C795 (number optimized to give large seed
differences for every tweak). If you want variation when changing the number of hash
functions, just choose a different seed. 

> > Maybe the actual filter data in filterload can be made optional:
> >   if it is omitted, it's assumed to be all zeroes (though that would mean the size
> >   has to be specified).
> > 
> I'm not sure here, if you are sending a filter just to use filteradd to
> add things to it manually, you are doing something very, very, very
> wrong... Though we could certainly do some kind of compressed bloom
> filter encoding to allow for small filter loads (loading the few things
> you need to filteradd right away) where you anticipate adding
> significantly more filter elements down the road (can anyone even come
> up with a case where you anticipate doing this?), the filter is small
> enough (max 36kB) that I see little benefit for the large increase in
> complexity (or is this another repeat of the merkle branch discussion?)

It's probably not worth it for something that is max 36 kilobytes. If ever
necessary, we can define a new message type that just lists a number of bits to
be set in the server-side filter.

For now, I agree that you should just send the filter as intended, and not expect to
do many filteradds (though you should take the implicitly-added txids into
accounted when computing the filter size).

-- 
Pieter