Re: [bitcoin-dev] Low-bandwidth transaction relay

[Gleb Naumenko <naumenko.gs@gmail.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1457 bytes --]

Thanks for the links!

Blocksonly is definitely a relevant piece. However, I’m wondering what are the implications, especially at larger scale. For example, transactions processing will be not smooth anymore and will happen every 10 minutes at once. Another question is transaction propagation.

I think what I’ve proposed does not have those implications. Well, propagation is still a concern, but it’s not that extreme. One weakness of my idea is relative complexity comparing to blocksonly.

Another variation of the idea I described might work without INVs at all  (then N=1 and transactions are relayed through 1 link only, during the time between blocks) and it would have the same security assumptions as blocksonly.

Your IBLT and BCH-sets proposals sound very promising. I had something like that on mind, but I decided to start with a more conservative protocol.
It looks like sync-relay idea has a lot of interesting questions, I’m excited to follow that research.

On Apr 3, 2018, 12:04 PM -0700, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell@gmail.com>, wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 2, 2018 at 10:18 PM, Gleb Naumenko via bitcoin-dev
> <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> > Hi all,
> > I have a couple of ideas regarding transaction relay protocol and wanted to
> > share it with and probably get some feedback.
>
>
>
> https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1377345.0
>
> https://people.xiph.org/~greg/mempool_sync_relay.txt

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2266 bytes --]