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 1TwVJn-0006Bc-R0 for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Sat, 19 Jan 2013 10:06:31 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of m.gmane.org designates 80.91.229.3 as permitted sender) client-ip=80.91.229.3; envelope-from=gcbd-bitcoin-development@m.gmane.org; helo=plane.gmane.org; Received: from plane.gmane.org ([80.91.229.3]) by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.76) id 1TwVJm-0002an-B1 for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Sat, 19 Jan 2013 10:06:31 +0000 Received: from list by plane.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1TwV5G-000590-Bl for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Sat, 19 Jan 2013 10:51:30 +0100 Received: from e178187115.adsl.alicedsl.de ([85.178.187.115]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sat, 19 Jan 2013 10:51:30 +0100 Received: from andreas by e178187115.adsl.alicedsl.de with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sat, 19 Jan 2013 10:51:30 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net From: Andreas Schildbach Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2013 10:51:04 +0100 Message-ID: <50FA6C88.1030102@schildbach.de> References: <20121121151534.GA5540@vps7135.xlshosting.net> <1353523117.1085.14.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20121127211019.GA22701@vps7135.xlshosting.net> <1357876751.1740.4.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1358348447.1048.0.camel@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: e178187115.adsl.alicedsl.de User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130106 Thunderbird/17.0.2 In-Reply-To: X-Spam-Score: -0.4 (/) 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 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/, no trust [80.91.229.3 listed in list.dnswl.org] -0.0 SPF_HELO_PASS SPF: HELO matches SPF record 1.1 DKIM_ADSP_ALL No valid author signature, domain signs all mail -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record -0.0 RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay domain X-Headers-End: 1TwVJm-0002an-B1 Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Draft BIP for Bloom filtering 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: Sat, 19 Jan 2013 10:06:32 -0000 Matt, I saw your commit and immediately started using it for testing. Now I think the bitcoinj side needs some love because not one transaction is being confirmed (all just pending) when replaying the blockchain. On 01/18/2013 05:38 PM, Mike Hearn wrote: > I'm thinking we should actually make the change we talked about before > and have the filtered block sent before the transaction data. > > For one, it's not intuitive (API wise) that you'd get a callback > saying "new pending tx" immediately before another callback saying "tx > was confirmed", but that's what the current setup makes most natural. > To fix it we'd have to notice that a tx message wasn't requested by > us, buffer it, and wait for the corresponding filteredblock message. > It seems cleaner to receive a filteredblock and then for any tx that > matches it, attach it to the FilteredBlock object and wait until it is > full up, then pass it to the wallet code all at once. > > Another issue is that to risk analyze unconfirmed transactions you > really have to download all dependencies. That has to be triggered by > seeing an unconfirmed transaction. It's dumb to start this process for > a tx that is actually in the chain, so you need to have some notion of > whether it came from a filtered block anyway. I only realized this > today. > > I think when we discussed this before, the justification for having it > work the current way was that it was simpler to integrate with the SPV > client code if it was done this way around. But I don't think it's > really simpler. There are enough odd side effects of doing it this > way, that I feel it'd be better to tweak the protocol now whilst we > have the chance. > > On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 4:00 PM, Matt Corallo wrote: >> Actually, there is one more minor algorithmic change I would like to >> make to the way the hash function is computed really quick before it >> gets merged, I'll have that finished up by the end of today. >> >> Matt >> >> On Wed, 2013-01-16 at 11:43 +0100, Mike Hearn wrote: >>> Matts latest code has been tested by Andreas and seems to work >>> correctly. He had to extend the client a bit to refresh the filter >>> every 25k blocks because even with the extra flag, eventually the >>> filter degrades into uselessness, but it did still improve the >>> situation quite a bit. >>> >>> Because it's unit tested, been reviewed by me several times, has an >>> interoperable implementation that has also been tested by Andreas in a >>> build of his smartphone app, I'm going to ACK the current code and >>> request that it be merged in to 0.8. What do you say Gavin? >>> >>> The next step after that would be profiling. It's a big performance >>> improvement for SPV clients already, but not as much as I anticipated. >>> I suspect there's a simple bottleneck or missed optimization >>> somewhere. But that can obviously come post-0.8 >> >> > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Master HTML5, CSS3, ASP.NET, MVC, AJAX, Knockout.js, Web API and > much more. Get web development skills now with LearnDevNow - > 350+ hours of step-by-step video tutorials by Microsoft MVPs and experts. > SALE $99.99 this month only -- learn more at: > http://p.sf.net/sfu/learnmore_122812 >