1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
|
Received: from sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.192]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-3.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <gmaxwell@gmail.com>) id 1X8JPM-00087H-P5
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Sat, 19 Jul 2014 01:25:52 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
designates 209.85.217.172 as permitted sender)
client-ip=209.85.217.172; envelope-from=gmaxwell@gmail.com;
helo=mail-lb0-f172.google.com;
Received: from mail-lb0-f172.google.com ([209.85.217.172])
by sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1X8JPK-00082L-Rk
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Sat, 19 Jul 2014 01:25:52 +0000
Received: by mail-lb0-f172.google.com with SMTP id z11so3388119lbi.31
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Fri, 18 Jul 2014 18:25:44 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.112.143.8 with SMTP id sa8mr8638605lbb.89.1405733144158;
Fri, 18 Jul 2014 18:25:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.112.35.138 with HTTP; Fri, 18 Jul 2014 18:25:44 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAPkFh0uuo=vOiLVTvozPiO7L26A4DpJ9nrKGeQZ+DC6HbO27TQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CA+iPb=EaX=bvOjNtZ+LnYTMRLQQ9nFcrefAkBdv8eActoX_b8A@mail.gmail.com>
<CABsx9T0ag_o_mu=5Q7Ju7s2hO3jz-o5g9FihE9h4B6+ednd2Pg@mail.gmail.com>
<CAJHLa0NZRF+1QjSwtwjaTE07NWJ_U-O-DE24=P5eSAutMqTupg@mail.gmail.com>
<CABsx9T2BDBNqvinVNk3FmBRWU7R8jf6Vm6NaH74te0FRCh1O-w@mail.gmail.com>
<CAJHLa0O=eCoyvV19dWgTnYd9Di0wLLZtWmCPidc-dWqPNQv_oQ@mail.gmail.com>
<CA+iPb=H2fkjCxS7-hYqHjFzfMh6onk5RqZMxa8zsXeTn6pQMpA@mail.gmail.com>
<CAJHLa0NRUdAPuKXgKDBmXOs9to7gMpHv9ECCz_hTfZpg7SVVJA@mail.gmail.com>
<CA+iPb=HhGkiuaAxQMvpDpUdeU0uA5unPa_0uHGkS3LrmJzEnyQ@mail.gmail.com>
<CA+iPb=FZS9FxP9uYWHTzLpSVJ2uaOwr4dTQSvYuJjhVYCcJOew@mail.gmail.com>
<CAJHLa0MSdafZiXNH_L8qqH63n3wP5hb0R=EX3SJtsD40Fq_VOA@mail.gmail.com>
<CAPkFh0uuo=vOiLVTvozPiO7L26A4DpJ9nrKGeQZ+DC6HbO27TQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2014 18:25:44 -0700
Message-ID: <CAAS2fgSfpTmNcexSV6U3wvbdddqZ8Pb0WVYh35jqNkJCMRbBkw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell@gmail.com>
To: =?UTF-8?Q?Emin_G=C3=BCn_Sirer?= <el33th4x0r@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Spam-Score: -1.6 (-)
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
(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
X-Headers-End: 1X8JPK-00082L-Rk
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Squashing redundant tx data in blocks on
the wire
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: Sat, 19 Jul 2014 01:25:52 -0000
On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 5:54 PM, Emin G=C3=BCn Sirer <el33th4x0r@gmail.com>=
wrote:
> The problem being tackled here is very similar to "set reconciliation,"
> where
> peer A thinks that the set of transactions that should be in the block is
> S_A,
Most things I've seen working in this space are attempting to minimize
the data transfered. At least for the miner-interested case the round
complexity is much more important because a single RTT is enough to
basically send the whole block on a lot of very relevant paths.
I know much better is possible (see up-thread where I linked to an old
proposal to use forward error correction to transfer with low data
transfer (but not optimal) and negligible probability of needing a
round-trip, with a tradeoff for more overhead for lower roundtrip
probability).
|
