š
Original date posted:2015-11-10
š Original message:On 10/11/2015 8:45 AM, Peter Tschipper wrote:
> On 10/11/2015 8:30 AM, Tier Nolan via bitcoin-dev wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 4:11 PM, Peter Tschipper
>> <peter.tschipper at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> There are better ways of sending new blocks, that's certainly
>> true but for sending historical blocks and seding transactions I
>> don't think so. This PR is really designed to save bandwidth and
>> not intended to be a huge performance improvement in terms of
>> time spent sending.
>>
>>
>> If the main point is for historical data, then sticking to just
>> blocks is the best plan.
>>
> at the beginning yes.
>> Since small blocks don't compress well, you could define a "cblocks"
>> message that handles multiple blocks (just concatenate the block
>> messages as payload before compression).
>>
> Small block are rare these days (but plenty of historical block), but
> still they get a 10% compression, not bad and I think worthwhile and
> the time it takes to compress small blocks is less that a millisecond
> so no loss there in time. But still you have a good point and
> something worthy of doing after getting compression to work. I think
> it's wise to keep it simple at first and build on the success later.
>> The sending peer could combine blocks so that each cblock is
>> compressing at least 10kB of block data (or whatever is optimal). It
>> is probably worth specifying a maximum size for network buffer
>> reasons (either 1MB or 1 block maximum).
> Good idea. Same answer as above.
>> Similarly, transactions could be combined together and compressed
>> "ctxs". The inv messages could be modified so that you can request
>> groups of 10-20 transactions. That would depend on how much of an
>> improvement compressed transactions would represent.
>>
> Good idea. Same answer as above.
>> More generally, you could define a message which is a compressed
>> message holder. That is probably to complex to be worth the effort
>> though.
> That's actually pretty easy to do and part of the plan. Sending a
> cmp_block rather than a block makes it all easier to implement. It's
> just a matter of doing pnode->pushmessage("cmp_block",
> compressed_block); and handling the "cmp_block" command string at the
> other end.
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 5:40 AM, Johnathan Corgan via
>>> bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
>>> <mailto:bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Mon, Nov 9, 2015 at 5:58 PM, gladoscc via bitcoin-dev
>>> <bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> I think 25% bandwidth savings is certainly considerable,
>>> especially for people running full nodes in countries
>>> like Australia where internet bandwidth is lower and
>>> there are data caps.
>>>
>>>
>>> ā This reinforces the idea that such trade-off decisions
>>> should be be local and negotiated between peers, not a
>>> required feature of the network P2P.ā
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Johnathan Corgan
>>> Corgan Labs - SDR Training and Development Services
>>> http://corganlabs.com
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> bitcoin-dev mailing list
>>> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
>>> <mailto:bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org>
>>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> bitcoin-dev mailing list
>>> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
>>> <mailto:bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org>
>>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> bitcoin-dev mailing list
>> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20151110/1aebeb1f/attachment-0001.html>;
Peter Tschipper [ARCHIVE] /
npub14sā¦653tk
2023-06-07 17:44:27
in reply to nevent1qā¦z4ce
Author Public Key
npub14sxt5nq5l8hfvd7yfcmh8gwjqhtzcc72vz2lcwd2uw0xlllwdayqk653tkPublished at
2023-06-07 17:44:27Event JSON
{
"id": "390e7990b2eedc14f987bf7bbfe9deba13595e1203967719555962e8ec213945",
"pubkey": "ac0cba4c14f9ee9637c44e3773a1d205d62c63ca6095fc39aae39e6fffee6f48",
"created_at": 1686159867,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"135d35eb642f6996f1dd35c63783ed01db4ec3c84bf3636c660d5a16e2852ec0",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"c9e1d4707d74c3fc2ef3de19b6161d721ee0b8770d1f0ae4379324ef37f8045e",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"ac0cba4c14f9ee9637c44e3773a1d205d62c63ca6095fc39aae39e6fffee6f48"
]
],
"content": "š
Original date posted:2015-11-10\nš Original message:On 10/11/2015 8:45 AM, Peter Tschipper wrote:\n\u003e On 10/11/2015 8:30 AM, Tier Nolan via bitcoin-dev wrote:\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 4:11 PM, Peter Tschipper\n\u003e\u003e \u003cpeter.tschipper at gmail.com\u003e wrote:\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e There are better ways of sending new blocks, that's certainly\n\u003e\u003e true but for sending historical blocks and seding transactions I\n\u003e\u003e don't think so. This PR is really designed to save bandwidth and\n\u003e\u003e not intended to be a huge performance improvement in terms of\n\u003e\u003e time spent sending.\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e If the main point is for historical data, then sticking to just\n\u003e\u003e blocks is the best plan.\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e at the beginning yes.\n\u003e\u003e Since small blocks don't compress well, you could define a \"cblocks\"\n\u003e\u003e message that handles multiple blocks (just concatenate the block\n\u003e\u003e messages as payload before compression). \n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e Small block are rare these days (but plenty of historical block), but\n\u003e still they get a 10% compression, not bad and I think worthwhile and\n\u003e the time it takes to compress small blocks is less that a millisecond\n\u003e so no loss there in time. But still you have a good point and\n\u003e something worthy of doing after getting compression to work. I think\n\u003e it's wise to keep it simple at first and build on the success later.\n\u003e\u003e The sending peer could combine blocks so that each cblock is\n\u003e\u003e compressing at least 10kB of block data (or whatever is optimal). It\n\u003e\u003e is probably worth specifying a maximum size for network buffer\n\u003e\u003e reasons (either 1MB or 1 block maximum).\n\u003e Good idea. Same answer as above.\n\u003e\u003e Similarly, transactions could be combined together and compressed\n\u003e\u003e \"ctxs\". The inv messages could be modified so that you can request\n\u003e\u003e groups of 10-20 transactions. That would depend on how much of an\n\u003e\u003e improvement compressed transactions would represent.\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e Good idea. Same answer as above.\n\u003e\u003e More generally, you could define a message which is a compressed\n\u003e\u003e message holder. That is probably to complex to be worth the effort\n\u003e\u003e though.\n\u003e That's actually pretty easy to do and part of the plan. Sending a\n\u003e cmp_block rather than a block makes it all easier to implement. It's\n\u003e just a matter of doing pnode-\u003epushmessage(\"cmp_block\",\n\u003e compressed_block); and handling the \"cmp_block\" command string at the\n\u003e other end.\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e \n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\u003e On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 5:40 AM, Johnathan Corgan via\n\u003e\u003e\u003e bitcoin-dev \u003cbitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\n\u003e\u003e\u003e \u003cmailto:bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e\u003e wrote:\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\u003e On Mon, Nov 9, 2015 at 5:58 PM, gladoscc via bitcoin-dev\n\u003e\u003e\u003e \u003cbitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e wrote:\n\u003e\u003e\u003e \n\u003e\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\u003e I think 25% bandwidth savings is certainly considerable,\n\u003e\u003e\u003e especially for people running full nodes in countries\n\u003e\u003e\u003e like Australia where internet bandwidth is lower and\n\u003e\u003e\u003e there are data caps.\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\u003e ā This reinforces the idea that such trade-off decisions\n\u003e\u003e\u003e should be be local and negotiated between peers, not a\n\u003e\u003e\u003e required feature of the network P2P.ā\n\u003e\u003e\u003e \n\u003e\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\u003e -- \n\u003e\u003e\u003e Johnathan Corgan\n\u003e\u003e\u003e Corgan Labs - SDR Training and Development Services\n\u003e\u003e\u003e http://corganlabs.com\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\u003e _______________________________________________\n\u003e\u003e\u003e bitcoin-dev mailing list\n\u003e\u003e\u003e bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\n\u003e\u003e\u003e \u003cmailto:bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\u003e https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\u003e _______________________________________________\n\u003e\u003e\u003e bitcoin-dev mailing list\n\u003e\u003e\u003e bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\n\u003e\u003e\u003e \u003cmailto:bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\u003e https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e _______________________________________________\n\u003e\u003e bitcoin-dev mailing list\n\u003e\u003e bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\n\u003e\u003e https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev\n\u003e\n\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20151110/1aebeb1f/attachment-0001.html\u003e",
"sig": "62aa27352b5110c550c212a9e28a70de24172ced579e0ae9e169378aedb3688dd7ba2e850ab9d48ffead0f57485ad7809a9ebb2f3f136e9d0f437b46cd2a9efa"
}