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 A7F0FE12 for ; Wed, 17 Feb 2016 02:28:32 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-io0-f179.google.com (mail-io0-f179.google.com [209.85.223.179]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0F5CA196 for ; Wed, 17 Feb 2016 02:28:32 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-io0-f179.google.com with SMTP id l127so16119668iof.3 for ; Tue, 16 Feb 2016 18:28:32 -0800 (PST) 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=++hdfkmeA7pnLVnKYSd5d4S60XJtUlHkmLyjphLPOwY=; b=CfBMWYS1MByolCXn7XqmcRqOsa4AHLAwlZjaU1jGurFBE0DtfxgrAu8lPcBa2RV3eF Yn7/6k5jOMfNpJWOhh69Da3Wxt56rVPeKmB+TLfrnfRP7rvkxF7pg/GV9Ld2uzydMaPN Y3l+gLMs/0sUY6oA9Ef8DR9iOgU79YNRjF2iGBc+rmB0wd7a+ixA+yF6PVXohRgpYKPE ozUeG88TrIxtSc3umuidGnGvue7IxEL1jUDXWgcYrqmarsgscQeiLK1NPRZPMuqSeQWo Tg9P5rUMlOCFPZ1q9Mlzed5sxb+6hWMjD5G3bWjBZCuL9KpErXbnjX2m3JwUVkM5BXrl sQMw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=++hdfkmeA7pnLVnKYSd5d4S60XJtUlHkmLyjphLPOwY=; b=Y1E5XOLr9SDQcclbAGlwpaxUivv2uccd5DLBDHsibqWvcLVOqi4iJZp1TNyEI5sjR7 6njEpmP3QKd/a3DXlqvNBC3aptLi89K8nmFatR32tmvYHJzi+1AA66vseIGeGM0+DB6F eo/R8PysoHja5vdPukI341zTEGezR1qwQPquKEswkyyoFQ6gtH7/iN7joUIt7Ld/lwuD zZ1yuBTKJhEZ9yBotv27WpCRUewPrXascL9wI5pQadZPnsHsuwc/JT6UhdIMmNZQeEh3 1g0NdSfA8PuUbEnI5ZNylr/QcDsXgRzk8gIeBPfyKhKTyBtqRGAdLAzrsiC2Lq25wJfK DyLA== X-Gm-Message-State: AG10YORyMopmS3XAo6wjEyo5rS5f+2aYR+I99o4mcQGZCNAIi2G4rmRu+NJh/FSKnkq4JIiITbF3mJpUvyOmNQ== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.107.10.147 with SMTP id 19mr719178iok.46.1455676111389; Tue, 16 Feb 2016 18:28:31 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.64.113.193 with HTTP; Tue, 16 Feb 2016 18:28:31 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <201602170046.17166.luke@dashjr.org> References: <201602170046.17166.luke@dashjr.org> Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2016 20:28:31 -0600 Message-ID: From: Alex Morcos To: Luke Dashjr Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113eddf2872ea8052bee0177 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, FREEMAIL_FROM, HTML_MESSAGE, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW, URIBL_SBL 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] [BIP Proposal] New "feefilter" p2p message 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, 17 Feb 2016 02:28:32 -0000 --001a113eddf2872ea8052bee0177 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 6:46 PM, Luke Dashjr wrote: > On Tuesday, February 16, 2016 8:20:26 PM Alex Morcos via bitcoin-dev wrote: > > # The feefilter message is defined as a message containing an int64_t > where > > pchCommand == "feefilter" > > What happened to extensibility? And why waste 64 bits for what is almost > certainly a small number? > I thought that extensibility was already sufficient with the command string system. If we come up with a better version of the feefilter later we can just give it a different command name. This seemed to encapsulate a fairly complete idea for now. As for the 8 bytes, it didn't seem necessary to me to over optimize with a custom encoding for what amounts to well under 20% of ping traffic. (pings are sent every 2 mins per peer, feefilters on average every 10 mins, but when the quantized value to be sent would be the same it is skipped) > > # The fee filter is additive with a bloom filter for transactions so if > an > > SPV client were to load a bloom filter and send a feefilter message, > > transactions would only be relayed if they passed both filters. > > This seems to make feefilter entirely useless for wallets? > > I don't follow this comment? Transactions aren't synced with the wallet unless they are accepted into the mempool. Sending feefilter messages should not reduce the number of transactions that are accepted to the mempool. > Luke > --001a113eddf2872ea8052bee0177 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 6:46 PM, Luke Dashjr <luke@dashjr.org> wrote:
On Tuesday, = February 16, 2016 8:20:26 PM Alex Morcos via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> # The feefilter message is defined as a message containing an int64_t = where
> pchCommand =3D=3D "feefilter"

What happened to extensibility? And why waste 64 bits for what is al= most
certainly a small number?

I thought tha= t extensibility was already sufficient with the command string system.=C2= =A0 If we come up with a better version of the feefilter later we can just = give it a different command name.=C2=A0 This seemed to encapsulate a fairly= complete idea for now.=C2=A0 As for the 8 bytes, it didn't seem necess= ary to me to over optimize with a custom encoding for what amounts to well = under 20% of ping traffic. =C2=A0(pings are sent every 2 mins per peer, fee= filters on average every 10 mins, but when the quantized value to be sent w= ould be the same it is skipped)


> # The fee filter is additive with a bloom filter for transactions so i= f an
> SPV client were to load a bloom filter and send a feefilter message, > transactions would only be relayed if they passed both filters.

This seems to make feefilter entirely useless for wallets?


I don't follow this comment?=C2=A0 Transactions = aren't synced with the wallet unless they are accepted into the mempool= .=C2=A0 Sending feefilter messages should not reduce the number of transact= ions that are accepted to the mempool.
=C2=A0
Luke

--001a113eddf2872ea8052bee0177--