From: Matt Corallo <bitcoin-list@bluematt•me>
To: bitcoin-development@lists•sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Segmented Block Relaying BIP draft.
Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2012 15:53:33 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1347306813.1419.20.camel@localhost.localdomain> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <239CFE18-302F-47F1-8686-67297FDDFB3C@godofgod.co.uk>
It seems to me the whole idea of segmenting blocks would add very little
(to nothing) with any sane block size. Sure, if a block were to be
10GB, it may make sense. However, even in that case, it would be easier
to relay a list of tx hashes (which may be a bit expensive) and txes
separately instead of using a notion of block segments. That said, I
don't see blocks ever being that large and if they do become that large,
as only a few full nodes will remain, upgrading their protocol would be
(relatively) easy. I would instead encourage focus on decreasing block
relay times for the current network and as blocks approach 10MB (so that
they can approach 10MB).
Matt
On Mon, 2012-09-10 at 20:34 +0100, Matthew Mitchell wrote:
> Do you mean getdata? Here is the reason for the 6 new messages:
>
>
> getseginv,seginv - These are for learning about what segments of a
> block a node has. Else you could remove these messages and simply have
> nodes advertise blocks via inventory messages. In this case nodes
> would have to wait until they had fully received a block before
> relaying anything. No longer is there a benefit with nodes being able
> to relay segments of blocks before they have received the entire
> block.
>
>
> gettreelevel,treelevel - These are to received a level of
> the merle tree. Instead you might use get data but gettreelevel is
> more compact than get data and is clearly differentiates itself as
> part of the new protocol. Perhaps these messages could include the
> block headers alongside the hashes and you could request many at once
> like with the getheaders message? If you skip these messages, then you
> could verify the transactions at the end but there would be problems
> when peers give bad segments where data would need to be downloaded
> again.
>
>
> getsegment,segment - These are clearly important to request and
> receive segments for the blocks. These allows for nodes
> to download arbitrary segments of blocks. The optimum number of
> segments could be calculated by node software using measurements of
> download speeds and latency times, the number of connections and how
> likely redundancy is to occur. If a node is up-to-date and likely has
> many of the transactions in blocks, it can start asking for the
> deepest merle level (tx hashes) and ask nodes for segments, avoiding
> transactions it already has.
>
>
> I'll get around to doing measurements myself sometime to estimate the
> benefit of this proposal. It will certainly be beneficial when block
> sizes reach some size but not much is really known except what can be
> assumed/guessed.
>
>
> I should also mention the bitcointalk topic
> here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=103295.0
>
> On 10 Sep 2012, at 19:59, "Luke-Jr" <luke@dashjr•org> wrote:
> >
> > Most of the problem with block propagation lies in implementation,
> > not
> > protocol... Distributing missing transaction on an as-needed basis
> > is a
> > possible improvement at the protocol level, but there hasn't (AFAIK)
> > been any
> > research into whether the little benefit outweighs the cost yet. In
> > any case,
> > I don't see why 6 new messages are needed instead of simply adding a
> > single
> > new type to getinv?
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-09-10 19:53 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-09-10 15:07 Matthew Mitchell
2012-09-10 15:14 ` Gregory Maxwell
2012-09-10 16:29 ` Matt Corallo
2012-09-10 18:59 ` Luke-Jr
2012-09-10 19:34 ` Matthew Mitchell
2012-09-10 19:53 ` Matt Corallo [this message]
2012-09-10 20:00 ` Gregory Maxwell
2012-09-11 19:07 Matthew Mitchell
2012-09-11 19:42 ` Gregory Maxwell
2012-09-11 21:48 ` Matthew Mitchell
2012-09-11 23:22 ` Gregory Maxwell
2012-09-13 8:42 ` Mike Hearn
2012-09-13 14:05 ` Matthew Mitchell
2012-09-13 15:16 ` Gregory Maxwell
[not found] ` <2B95CF41-4304-4D2A-9ABF-198D97B7449B@godofgod.co.uk>
2012-09-13 15:46 ` Matthew Mitchell
[not found] ` <CAAS2fgQi8QFwU2M=wLiDodt3SmO48vUV5Sp3YCb1OmGJ5m=E7Q@mail.gmail.com>
2012-09-13 17:49 ` Matthew Mitchell
2012-09-13 18:59 ` Pieter Wuille
2012-09-13 20:24 ` Matthew Mitchell
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1347306813.1419.20.camel@localhost.localdomain \
--to=bitcoin-list@bluematt$(echo .)me \
--cc=bitcoin-development@lists$(echo .)sourceforge.net \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox