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
|
Received: from sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.194]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-1.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <gavinandresen@gmail.com>) id 1TR65u-0004vO-0n
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Wed, 24 Oct 2012 18:54:22 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
designates 74.125.82.175 as permitted sender)
client-ip=74.125.82.175; envelope-from=gavinandresen@gmail.com;
helo=mail-we0-f175.google.com;
Received: from mail-we0-f175.google.com ([74.125.82.175])
by sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1TR65t-0006zC-8n
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Wed, 24 Oct 2012 18:54:21 +0000
Received: by mail-we0-f175.google.com with SMTP id t44so477486wey.34
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Wed, 24 Oct 2012 11:54:15 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.216.200.150 with SMTP id z22mr9648540wen.97.1351104855107;
Wed, 24 Oct 2012 11:54:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.194.27.136 with HTTP; Wed, 24 Oct 2012 11:54:15 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <20121024171104.GA31766@vps7135.xlshosting.net>
References: <CANEZrP0XALwBFJyZTzYd5xBp4MRrjv0s_y2tOXbO7UgjWF2HzA@mail.gmail.com>
<20121024162255.GA30290@vps7135.xlshosting.net>
<CANEZrP1sxtOb+czMtBTkmzngEwMYRqD667WyKQkAOKLi+mGBGQ@mail.gmail.com>
<20121024171104.GA31766@vps7135.xlshosting.net>
Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2012 14:54:15 -0400
Message-ID: <CABsx9T0JyFJKLWK09NEzDk6B9Z2Yz7T55kf8GJ2o3ViCnBpRAw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Gavin Andresen <gavinandresen@gmail.com>
To: Pieter Wuille <pieter.wuille@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
X-Spam-Score: -1.5 (-)
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
(gavinandresen[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
0.1 AWL AWL: From: address is in the auto white-list
X-Headers-End: 1TR65t-0006zC-8n
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Draft BIP for Bloom filtering
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: Wed, 24 Oct 2012 18:54:22 -0000
RE: sharing parts of the merkle branches when returning a 'merkleblock' :
I think I agree that complicating the BIP for what should be a very
rare case (more than a handful of transactions in a block match the
transactions in your wallet) is the right decision.
I want to make sure I'm understanding this bit correctly:
"In addition, because a merkleblock message contains only a list of
transaction hashes, any transactions that the requesting node hasn't
either received or announced with an inv will be automatically sent as
well. This avoids a slow roundtrip that would otherwise be required
(receive hashes, didn't see some of these transactions yet, ask for
them)."
Requiring serving/relaying nodes to keep track of which transactions
they have or have not sent to their peers makes me nervous. I think
requiring an extra 'inv' round-trip would be simpler to implement and
less likely to lead to some kind of DoS attack.
--
--
Gavin Andresen
|
