From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 95A345AE for ; Tue, 3 May 2016 05:02:31 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-lf0-f43.google.com (mail-lf0-f43.google.com [209.85.215.43]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BDBED12C for ; Tue, 3 May 2016 05:02:30 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-lf0-f43.google.com with SMTP id u64so8940675lff.3 for ; Mon, 02 May 2016 22:02:30 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:cc; bh=e0h+CdnfhVgwzrQGk+kgxhpwbVr4whScB3+VJje1S/A=; b=cv68MjnF/t7lVr+Ze/70CpKR918wByq6G30gw2K8+tPEaVY0xANwH4PIp6TQ2B5Lmp 4PtH77zbZPG7MoVGozKCdMYAZJ7FCHV8AILjLdFRNZ2gMuwJcPkkV/H7HncYMb5u44D3 NEEAZZX36y4SEXILJMFMM7pVK1vplusOSPg5ZIe2VeK4JMuRjQx4eJUjL7cyzenGQjz0 7lYkrTmt9D77b63rq8ecuTY6ihw/E/ckQ9f3yPOwqjxUR5gsYik0RJRh7LT8C0KpfoMS kiKTIEKr5YM86LDQmJltvR6fbVkEydvJd+5t2EsHGErNBG2O4G/Nv/PyT3BLL9HesI85 8/Ug== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc; bh=e0h+CdnfhVgwzrQGk+kgxhpwbVr4whScB3+VJje1S/A=; b=LIvxSv/kqWH3zUhGieI5XUB9A/JSjF+ItXfX2htrXpZkgJoBfhq7DPs+LXeVqTwc+X h+PtZuD4XWbQM6Oclg9a7Sqza3MxUspzy3Wvu0keFAXQrW9lDQGlV7PQpEOuiTLHHOps hRL75CjZHReuuzXMOw6Ejzfa6H73sbqVdGJuVooH9v+ojxu36mEABandDyGbcphpkFto 7tQjoi8zeEAJl6UswRHxYqM3QJeaVRFE8Hxey7MCbrOvnh9PRyeK1WXkPSvEHuXaD2z9 z1nrmPLjYmG58KNWIkh+MoglDKuo7l9Sv7bKuawa9y2N7D5c21jZtYiayyH9zxqP1KA/ +Hzw== X-Gm-Message-State: AOPr4FXbjnHS+IQFXfNTarWtX7kbuWYuk9xemq3tM1alprZFumR0fUKtyHkep6V1GXJSxfG7bhmAWIYp9KFtwA== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.25.86.144 with SMTP id k138mr239563lfb.6.1462251748798; Mon, 02 May 2016 22:02:28 -0700 (PDT) Sender: gmaxwell@gmail.com Received: by 10.112.212.37 with HTTP; Mon, 2 May 2016 22:02:28 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <5727D102.1020807@mattcorallo.com> References: <5727D102.1020807@mattcorallo.com> Date: Tue, 3 May 2016 05:02:28 +0000 X-Google-Sender-Auth: IwRNQ9gmQLKz6WLz0Ob7_Q9e998 Message-ID: From: Gregory Maxwell To: Matt Corallo Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, FREEMAIL_FROM, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 03 May 2016 06:28:43 +0000 Cc: Bitcoin Dev , Luke Dashjr Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Compact Block Relay BIP X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Development Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 03 May 2016 05:02:31 -0000 On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 10:13 PM, Matt Corallo via bitcoin-dev wrote: > Hi all, > > The following is a BIP-formatted design spec for compact block relay > designed to limit on wire bytes during block relay. You can find the > latest version of this document at > https://github.com/TheBlueMatt/bips/blob/master/bip-TODO.mediawiki. Thanks Matt! I've been testing this for a couple weeks (in various forms). I've been getting over 96% reduction in block-bytes sent. I don't have a good metric for it, but bandwidth spikes are greatly reduced. The largest blocktxn message I've seen on a node that has been up for at least a day is 475736 bytes. 94% of the blocks less than 100kb must be sent in total. In the opportunistic mode my measurements are showing 73% of blocks transferred with 0.5 RTT even without prediction, 87% if up to 4 additional transactions are predicted, and 91% for 30 transactions (my rough estimate for the 10k maximum prediction suggested in the BIP.