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 E5A83938 for ; Wed, 19 Aug 2015 12:44:06 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-lb0-f178.google.com (mail-lb0-f178.google.com [209.85.217.178]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 75C48F2 for ; Wed, 19 Aug 2015 12:44:05 +0000 (UTC) Received: by lbbtg9 with SMTP id tg9so2353336lbb.1 for ; Wed, 19 Aug 2015 05:44:04 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=bJAaIkDrM7AvWfy06XNnGmj9SZxdhs5ymPgtNz/zV5I=; b=G+fCEEvQ1WuspZibJb6xbahaJWcwnW4fn/QD/HU+TqtkNU3/+rU0hgdVOZh1Z9/I3U L4q9WmdTt4vtsnjsx7YwDE6GrG2HTXCPX8AHrJ83Zwum3GgFMZYntrhe8u1kfFM5i9xE 2TcE6UiiEmV14zeeHaKqutH0r+J0cVZXqysMutHboK96ZyUAKzP2XdbB76twZ4IDM4iY 7xksLQceCyEyEmdMk+3wVCd74JXxWr9qCCIgDJ+vnkzvFttiyKU98aAO+wO42tobV0uQ 2yzgJ/LGa1yHWyzCyIuQeY23j744Zlzf8kLvIX3h3v/Tmz1XTZttgXFl1+8brLJrnknh KXuw== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.152.87.227 with SMTP id bb3mr438012lab.1.1439988243980; Wed, 19 Aug 2015 05:44:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.25.150.84 with HTTP; Wed, 19 Aug 2015 05:44:03 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2015 08:44:03 -0400 Message-ID: From: Jameson Lopp To: Hector Chu Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c2ae9cc36784051da963df X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,HTML_MESSAGE,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 Cc: Bitcoin Dev Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] A solution to increase the incentive of running a node 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: Wed, 19 Aug 2015 12:44:07 -0000 --001a11c2ae9cc36784051da963df Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 8:15 AM, Hector Chu wrote: > On 19 August 2015 at 13:08, Jameson Lopp wrote: > > If operating as an SPV node then it can check the transactions by > querying > > other nodes. > > SPV is for checking validity of transactions that have already entered > the blockchain, as I understand it. My proposal requires nodes to > validate transactions that are unconfirmed, and to commit to the > validation by doing a POW on it. > > It's possible to check that a transaction is cryptographically valid without having any blockchain data available; are you referring to a different type of validation? If you're running an SPV node that is listening to full nodes on the network, you can request an unconfirmed transaction from connected peers after receiving the inventory message they send - that's how unconfirmed transactions propagate through the node network. This is not 100% proof that the transaction is valid for inclusion in the blockchain, but it's a very good indicator. - Jameson > > On an unrelated note, it sounds like your proposal will significantly > > increase the data size of every transaction, which will create even more > > contention for block space. > > If we stipulate that the coinbase fields only hold space for a single > pubkey, then the entire block header including the two coinbases > should only take an extra 100 bytes or so. Transactions are already > routinely 250 bytes+. So an increase of roughly 33%. > --001a11c2ae9cc36784051da963df Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

= On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 8:15 AM, Hector Chu <hectorchu@gmail.com&g= t; wrote:
On 19 A= ugust 2015 at 13:08, Jameson Lopp <jameson.lopp@gmail.com> wrote:
> If operating as an SPV node then it can check the transactions by quer= ying
> other nodes.

SPV is for checking validity of transactions that have already enter= ed
the blockchain, as I understand it. My proposal requires nodes to
validate transactions that are unconfirmed, and to commit to the
validation by doing a POW on it.

It's possible to check th= at a transaction is cryptographically valid without having any blockchain d= ata available; are you referring to a different type of validation?

=
If you're running an SPV node that is listening to full node= s on the network, you can request an unconfirmed transaction from connected= peers after receiving the inventory message they send - that's how unc= onfirmed transactions propagate through the node network. This is not 100% = proof that the transaction is valid for inclusion in the blockchain, but it= 's a very good indicator.

- Jameson
=C2= =A0
> On an unrelated note, it sounds like your proposal will significantly<= br> > increase the data size of every transaction, which will create even mo= re
> contention for block space.

If we stipulate that the coinbase fields only hold space for a singl= e
pubkey, then the entire block header including the two coinbases
should only take an extra 100 bytes or so. Transactions are already
routinely 250 bytes+. So an increase of roughly 33%.

--001a11c2ae9cc36784051da963df--