Received: from sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.194] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-3.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from <gmaxwell@gmail.com>) id 1TB5h6-0002wp-J1 for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Mon, 10 Sep 2012 15:14:36 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com designates 209.85.223.175 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.223.175; envelope-from=gmaxwell@gmail.com; helo=mail-ie0-f175.google.com; Received: from mail-ie0-f175.google.com ([209.85.223.175]) by sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1TB5h1-0008JD-49 for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Mon, 10 Sep 2012 15:14:36 +0000 Received: by iebc11 with SMTP id c11so3368865ieb.34 for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>; Mon, 10 Sep 2012 08:14:25 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.50.45.234 with SMTP id q10mr11760037igm.33.1347290065799; Mon, 10 Sep 2012 08:14:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.64.56.66 with HTTP; Mon, 10 Sep 2012 08:14:25 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <BA7EEDEA-5A56-42F5-A43D-0D4C9CC99DBC@godofgod.co.uk> References: <BA7EEDEA-5A56-42F5-A43D-0D4C9CC99DBC@godofgod.co.uk> Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2012 11:14:25 -0400 Message-ID: <CAAS2fgTPLX+p_8eq8XTKHO-LsE+PgMs5SoDh=ho3wcdgCDXR6Q@mail.gmail.com> From: Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell@gmail.com> To: Matthew Mitchell <matthewmitchell@godofgod.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Spam-Score: -0.7 (/) 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 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider (gmaxwell[at]gmail.com) -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record -0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from author's domain 0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not necessarily valid -0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature 0.9 AWL AWL: From: address is in the auto white-list X-Headers-End: 1TB5h1-0008JD-49 Cc: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Segmented Block Relaying BIP draft. X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: <bitcoin-development.lists.sourceforge.net> List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>, <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=unsubscribe> List-Archive: <http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_name=bitcoin-development> List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net> List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>, <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=subscribe> X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2012 15:14:36 -0000 On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 11:07 AM, Matthew Mitchell <matthewmitchell@godofgod.co.uk> wrote: > Here is a BIP draft for improving the block relaying and validation so that > it can be done in parallel and so that redundancy can be removed. This > becomes more beneficial the larger the block sizes are. > > https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/User:MatthewLM/ImprovedBlockRelayingProposal Why does this focus on actually sending the hash tree? The block header + transaction list + transactions a node doesn't already know (often just the coinbase) is enough.