path: root/82/20030b89f54027b7b9f51d52f9ca3d5b6276ae

Received: from sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.193]
	helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
	by sfs-ml-3.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
	(envelope-from <tier.nolan@gmail.com>) id 1XnyYU-0008Rs-41
	for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
	Mon, 10 Nov 2014 23:39:30 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
	designates 209.85.216.179 as permitted sender)
	client-ip=209.85.216.179; envelope-from=tier.nolan@gmail.com;
	helo=mail-qc0-f179.google.com; 
Received: from mail-qc0-f179.google.com ([209.85.216.179])
	by sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
	(Exim 4.76) id 1XnyYS-0002Tj-JX
	for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
	Mon, 10 Nov 2014 23:39:30 +0000
Received: by mail-qc0-f179.google.com with SMTP id o8so6565997qcw.24
	for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
	Mon, 10 Nov 2014 15:39:23 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.140.29.226 with SMTP id b89mr24905130qgb.94.1415662763143;
	Mon, 10 Nov 2014 15:39:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.140.41.18 with HTTP; Mon, 10 Nov 2014 15:39:23 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CAE-z3OWULmtZY=VS8xWxiPJ3sA7kCALBgW2T6kWjMXrVVBW4Vg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAE-z3OW3=mBNC_p911y6HspF4r9g=sSPM2S-mmBTm+=hoxDprA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAE-z3OXr0wudFe2qVs0i8Y0PNtHUmfS_PDiOH5UeRyf1LnJC2A@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAAS2fgQanj6QN3UFvO8Lw=9ZQgLM3wzZknVQ3hbMxyODyEUF_w@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAE-z3OV9xDvJ3VY5q6sayZGc4Zr3cxszjGMs7AXo7FRWJSLy7Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAE-z3OWULmtZY=VS8xWxiPJ3sA7kCALBgW2T6kWjMXrVVBW4Vg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2014 23:39:23 +0000
Message-ID: <CAE-z3OUzjYzL0j6zi59jwV9oWQ=85xcG2Hh2Tc0y5Ru2couQ9w@mail.gmail.com>
From: Tier Nolan <tier.nolan@gmail.com>
To: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113aac4a1e7adb050789ace3
X-Spam-Score: -0.6 (/)
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
	(tier.nolan[at]gmail.com)
	-0.0 SPF_PASS               SPF: sender matches SPF record
	1.0 HTML_MESSAGE           BODY: HTML included in message
	-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
X-Headers-End: 1XnyYS-0002Tj-JX
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] BIP draft - Auxiliary Header Format
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 Nov 2014 23:39:30 -0000

--001a113aac4a1e7adb050789ace3
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

I have added the network BIP too.  It only has the aheaders message and the
extra field for getheaders.

https://github.com/TierNolan/bips/blob/aux_header/bip-aux-header-network.mediawiki

The transaction definitions are still at:

https://github.com/TierNolan/bips/blob/aux_header/bip-aux-header.mediawiki

On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 9:21 PM, Tier Nolan <tier.nolan@gmail.com> wrote:

> I updated the BIP to cover only the specification of the transactions that
> need to be added.  I will create a network BIP tomorrow.
>
> On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 11:42 AM, Tier Nolan <tier.nolan@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> The aheaders message is required to make use of the data by SPV clients.
>> This could be in a separate BIP though.  I wanted to show that the merkle
>> path to the aux-header transaction could be efficiently encoded, but a
>> reference to the other BIP would be sufficient.
>>
>> For the other messages, the problem is that the hash of the aux header is
>> part of the block, but the aux header itself is not.  That means that the
>> aux header has to be sent for validation of the block.
>>
>> I will change it so that the entire aux-header is encoded in the block.
>> I think encoding the hash in the final transaction and the full aux-header
>> in the 2nd last one is the best way to do it.  This has the added advantage
>> of reducing the changes to block data storage, since the aux-header doesn't
>> have to be stored separately.
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 12:52 AM, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Some initial comments...
>>>
>>> Tying in the protocol changes is really confusing and the fact that
>>> they seem to be required out the gates would seemingly make this much
>>> harder to deploy.   Is there a need to do that? Why can't the p2p part
>>> be entirely separate from the comitted data?
>>>
>>> On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 12:39 AM, Tier Nolan <tier.nolan@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> > I made some changes to the draft.  The merkleblock now has the
>>> auxiliary
>>> > header information too.
>>> >
>>> > There is a tradeoff between overhead and delayed transactions.  Is
>>> 12.5%
>>> > transactions being delayed to the next block unacceptable?  Would
>>> adding
>>> > padding transactions be an improvement?
>>> >
>>> > Creating the "seed" transactions is an implementation headache.
>>> >
>>> > Each node needs to have control over an UTXO to create the final
>>> transaction
>>> > in the block that has the digest of the auxiliary header.  This means
>>> that
>>> > it is not possible to simply start a node and have it mine.  It has to
>>> > somehow be given the private key.  If two nodes were given the same
>>> key by
>>> > accident, then one could end up blocking the other.
>>> >
>>> > On one end of the scale is adding a transaction with a few thousand
>>> outputs
>>> > into the block chain.  The signatures for locktime restricted
>>> transactions
>>> > that spend those outputs could be hard-coded into the software.  This
>>> is the
>>> > easiest to implement, but would mean a large table of signatures.  The
>>> > person who generates the signature list would have to be trusted not to
>>> > spend the outputs early.
>>> >
>>> > The other end of the scale means that mining nodes need to include a
>>> wallets
>>> > to manage their UTXO entry.  Miners can split a zero value output into
>>> lots
>>> > of outputs, if they wish.
>>> >
>>> > A middle ground would be for nodes to be able to detect the special
>>> > transactions and use them.  A server could send out timelocked
>>> transactions
>>> > that pay to a particular address but the transaction would be
>>> timelocked.
>>> > The private key for the output would be known.  However, miners who
>>> mine
>>> > version 2 blocks wouldn't be able to spend them early.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > On Sat, Nov 8, 2014 at 11:45 PM, Tier Nolan <tier.nolan@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> I created a draft BIP detailing a way to add auxiliary headers to
>>> Bitcoin
>>> >> in a bandwidth efficient way.  The overhead per auxiliary header is
>>> only
>>> >> around 104 bytes per header.  This is much smaller than would be
>>> required by
>>> >> embedding the hash of the header in the coinbase of the block.
>>> >>
>>> >> It is a soft fork and it uses the last transaction in the block to
>>> store
>>> >> the hash of the auxiliary header.
>>> >>
>>> >> It makes use of the fact that the last transaction in the block has a
>>> much
>>> >> less complex Merkle branch than the other transactions.
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> https://github.com/TierNolan/bips/blob/aux_header/bip-aux-header.mediawiki
>>> >>
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> >
>>> > _______________________________________________
>>> > Bitcoin-development mailing list
>>> > Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
>>> > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
>>> >
>>>
>>
>>
>

--001a113aac4a1e7adb050789ace3
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr">I have added the network BIP too.=C2=A0 It only has the ah=
eaders message and the extra field for getheaders.<br><br><a href=3D"https:=
//github.com/TierNolan/bips/blob/aux_header/bip-aux-header-network.mediawik=
i">https://github.com/TierNolan/bips/blob/aux_header/bip-aux-header-network=
.mediawiki</a><br><br>The transaction definitions are still at:<br><br><a h=
ref=3D"https://github.com/TierNolan/bips/blob/aux_header/bip-aux-header.med=
iawiki">https://github.com/TierNolan/bips/blob/aux_header/bip-aux-header.me=
diawiki</a><br></div><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><div class=3D"gmail_quo=
te">On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 9:21 PM, Tier Nolan <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a hr=
ef=3D"mailto:tier.nolan@gmail.com" target=3D"_blank">tier.nolan@gmail.com</=
a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0=
 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr">I u=
pdated the BIP to cover only the specification of the transactions that nee=
d to be added.=C2=A0 I will create a network BIP tomorrow.<br></div><div cl=
ass=3D"HOEnZb"><div class=3D"h5"><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><div class=
=3D"gmail_quote">On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 11:42 AM, Tier Nolan <span dir=3D"=
ltr">&lt;<a href=3D"mailto:tier.nolan@gmail.com" target=3D"_blank">tier.nol=
an@gmail.com</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" sty=
le=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div d=
ir=3D"ltr"><div><div>The aheaders message is required to make use of the da=
ta by SPV clients.=C2=A0 This could be in a separate BIP though.=C2=A0 I wa=
nted to show that the merkle path to the aux-header transaction could be ef=
ficiently encoded, but a reference to the other BIP would be sufficient.<br=
><br></div>For the other messages, the problem is that the hash of the aux =
header is part of the block, but the aux header itself is not.=C2=A0 That m=
eans that the aux header has to be sent for validation of the block.<br><br=
></div>I will change it so that the entire aux-header is encoded in the blo=
ck.=C2=A0 I think encoding the hash in the final transaction and the full a=
ux-header in the 2nd last one is the best way to do it.=C2=A0 This has the =
added advantage of reducing the changes to block data storage, since the au=
x-header doesn&#39;t have to be stored separately.<div><div><br><div><br><d=
iv><div><div><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Mon, =
Nov 10, 2014 at 12:52 AM, Gregory Maxwell <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=3D"=
mailto:gmaxwell@gmail.com" target=3D"_blank">gmaxwell@gmail.com</a>&gt;</sp=
an> wrote:<br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;=
border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Some initial comments...<br>
<br>
Tying in the protocol changes is really confusing and the fact that<br>
they seem to be required out the gates would seemingly make this much<br>
harder to deploy.=C2=A0 =C2=A0Is there a need to do that? Why can&#39;t the=
 p2p part<br>
be entirely separate from the comitted data?<br>
<div><div><br>
On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 12:39 AM, Tier Nolan &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:tier.nol=
an@gmail.com" target=3D"_blank">tier.nolan@gmail.com</a>&gt; wrote:<br>
&gt; I made some changes to the draft.=C2=A0 The merkleblock now has the au=
xiliary<br>
&gt; header information too.<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; There is a tradeoff between overhead and delayed transactions.=C2=A0 I=
s 12.5%<br>
&gt; transactions being delayed to the next block unacceptable?=C2=A0 Would=
 adding<br>
&gt; padding transactions be an improvement?<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; Creating the &quot;seed&quot; transactions is an implementation headac=
he.<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; Each node needs to have control over an UTXO to create the final trans=
action<br>
&gt; in the block that has the digest of the auxiliary header.=C2=A0 This m=
eans that<br>
&gt; it is not possible to simply start a node and have it mine.=C2=A0 It h=
as to<br>
&gt; somehow be given the private key.=C2=A0 If two nodes were given the sa=
me key by<br>
&gt; accident, then one could end up blocking the other.<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; On one end of the scale is adding a transaction with a few thousand ou=
tputs<br>
&gt; into the block chain.=C2=A0 The signatures for locktime restricted tra=
nsactions<br>
&gt; that spend those outputs could be hard-coded into the software.=C2=A0 =
This is the<br>
&gt; easiest to implement, but would mean a large table of signatures.=C2=
=A0 The<br>
&gt; person who generates the signature list would have to be trusted not t=
o<br>
&gt; spend the outputs early.<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; The other end of the scale means that mining nodes need to include a w=
allets<br>
&gt; to manage their UTXO entry.=C2=A0 Miners can split a zero value output=
 into lots<br>
&gt; of outputs, if they wish.<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; A middle ground would be for nodes to be able to detect the special<br=
>
&gt; transactions and use them.=C2=A0 A server could send out timelocked tr=
ansactions<br>
&gt; that pay to a particular address but the transaction would be timelock=
ed.<br>
&gt; The private key for the output would be known.=C2=A0 However, miners w=
ho mine<br>
&gt; version 2 blocks wouldn&#39;t be able to spend them early.<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; On Sat, Nov 8, 2014 at 11:45 PM, Tier Nolan &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:tier=
.nolan@gmail.com" target=3D"_blank">tier.nolan@gmail.com</a>&gt; wrote:<br>
&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt; I created a draft BIP detailing a way to add auxiliary headers to =
Bitcoin<br>
&gt;&gt; in a bandwidth efficient way.=C2=A0 The overhead per auxiliary hea=
der is only<br>
&gt;&gt; around 104 bytes per header.=C2=A0 This is much smaller than would=
 be required by<br>
&gt;&gt; embedding the hash of the header in the coinbase of the block.<br>
&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt; It is a soft fork and it uses the last transaction in the block to=
 store<br>
&gt;&gt; the hash of the auxiliary header.<br>
&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt; It makes use of the fact that the last transaction in the block ha=
s a much<br>
&gt;&gt; less complex Merkle branch than the other transactions.<br>
&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt; <a href=3D"https://github.com/TierNolan/bips/blob/aux_header/bip-a=
ux-header.mediawiki" target=3D"_blank">https://github.com/TierNolan/bips/bl=
ob/aux_header/bip-aux-header.mediawiki</a><br>
&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt;<br>
</div></div><div><div>&gt; ------------------------------------------------=
------------------------------<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; _______________________________________________<br>
&gt; Bitcoin-development mailing list<br>
&gt; <a href=3D"mailto:Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net" target=3D=
"_blank">Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net</a><br>
&gt; <a href=3D"https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-develo=
pment" target=3D"_blank">https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitco=
in-development</a><br>
&gt;<br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div></div></div></div></div></div></di=
v></div>
</blockquote></div><br></div>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div>

--001a113aac4a1e7adb050789ace3--