📅 Original date posted:2012-09-10
📝 Original message:I actually implemented parts of the header+ v<tx> stuff in a branch with
my bloom filter stuff, you can see it here:
https://github.com/TheBlueMatt/bitcoin/commits/bloom%2Brelayblock
Its pretty stupid and would be pretty easy to DoS/get it stuck/etc, but
in theory it works. I don't see much reason why we'd need anything
significantly more complicated, but maybe there is a use-case I'm
missing?
Matt
On Mon, 2012-09-10 at 11:14 -0400, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 11:07 AM, Matthew Mitchell
> <matthewmitchell at 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.
Matt Corallo [ARCHIVE] /
npub1e4…jxmcu
2023-06-07 10:29:49
in reply to nevent1q…5n2x
Author Public Key
npub1e46n428mcyfwznl7nlsf6d3s7rhlwm9x3cmkuqzt3emmdpadmkaqqjxmcuPublished at
2023-06-07 10:29:49Event JSON
{
"id": "3d1b1164e49fb778aea9556dd796d778835837c11b7f93fd984fb97512169cbe",
"pubkey": "cd753aa8fbc112e14ffe9fe09d3630f0eff76ca68e376e004b8e77b687adddba",
"created_at": 1686133789,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"01a6f711ef1b7330c19a9db1a4460d0ab8666d7f294d3a77046cc3bcf8853f04",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"a23c7bd0bc5112b3cfe042052240926b0ac6860aec6d578266476a115187e159",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"4aa6cf9aa5c8e98f401dac603c6a10207509b6a07317676e9d6615f3d7103d73"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2012-09-10\n📝 Original message:I actually implemented parts of the header+ v\u003ctx\u003e stuff in a branch with\nmy bloom filter stuff, you can see it here:\nhttps://github.com/TheBlueMatt/bitcoin/commits/bloom%2Brelayblock\nIts pretty stupid and would be pretty easy to DoS/get it stuck/etc, but\nin theory it works. I don't see much reason why we'd need anything\nsignificantly more complicated, but maybe there is a use-case I'm\nmissing?\n\nMatt\n\nOn Mon, 2012-09-10 at 11:14 -0400, Gregory Maxwell wrote:\n\u003e On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 11:07 AM, Matthew Mitchell\n\u003e \u003cmatthewmitchell at godofgod.co.uk\u003e wrote:\n\u003e \u003e Here is a BIP draft for improving the block relaying and validation so that\n\u003e \u003e it can be done in parallel and so that redundancy can be removed. This\n\u003e \u003e becomes more beneficial the larger the block sizes are.\n\u003e \u003e\n\u003e \u003e https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/User:MatthewLM/ImprovedBlockRelayingProposal\n\u003e \n\u003e Why does this focus on actually sending the hash tree? The block\n\u003e header + transaction list + transactions a node doesn't already know\n\u003e (often just the coinbase) is enough.",
"sig": "e6fa4413a939fb48cc52b61da684fcc5ce7c5e01bbe4d677a890807ee7624868d2cc9c6fa6934b8a6941d8826f6cc46fc273a65754598488be3bda2a5adbea08"
}