From: Jonathan Toomim <j@toom•im>
To: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Capacity increases for the Bitcoin system.
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2015 19:21:43 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <3292B7BA-13A8-4BD9-AB08-4F5EBE534771@toom.im> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAOG=w-t=+0Zdoy+d4Y2t9nbRkyO30N_Az9kbRarGo69yHCpSwA@mail.gmail.com>
[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2378 bytes --]
This means that a server supporting SW might only hear of the tx data and not get the signature data for some transactions, depending on how the relay rules worked (e.g. if the SW peers had higher minrelaytxfee settings than the legacy peers). This would complicate fast block relay code like IBLTs, since we now have to check to see that the recipient has both the tx data and the witness/sig data.
The same issue might happen with block relay if we do SW as a soft fork. A SW node might see a block inv from a legacy node first, and might start downloading the block from that node. This block would then be marked as in-flight, and the witness data might not get downloaded. This shouldn't be too hard to fix by creating an inv for the witness data as a separate object, so that a node could download the block from e.g. Peer 1 and the segwit data from Peer 2.
Of course, the code would be simpler if we did this as a hard fork and we could rely on everyone on the segwit fork supporting the segwit data. Although maybe we want to write the interfaces in a way that supports some nodes not downloading the segwit data anyway, just because not every node will want that data.
I haven't had time to read sipa's code yet. I apologize for talking out of a position of ignorance. For anyone who has, do you feel like sharing how it deals with these network relay issues?
By the way, since this thread is really about SegWit and not about any other mechanism for increasing Bitcoin capacity, perhaps we should rename it accordingly?
On Dec 12, 2015, at 11:18 PM, Mark Friedenbach via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> A segwit supporting server would be required to support relaying segwit transactions, although a non-segwit server could at least inform a wallet of segwit txns observed, even if it doesn't relay all information necessary to validate.
>
> Non segwit servers and wallets would continue operations as if nothing had occurred.
>
> If this means essentially that a soft fork deployment of SegWit will require SPV wallet servers to change their logic (or risk not being able to send payments) then it does seem to me that a hard fork to deploy this non controversial change is not only cleaner (on the data structure side) but safer in terms of the potential to affect the user experience.
>
>
> — Regards,
[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: text/html, Size: 3165 bytes --]
[-- Attachment #2: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 496 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-12-14 11:21 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 56+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-12-07 22:02 Gregory Maxwell
2015-12-07 22:54 ` Bryan Bishop
2015-12-08 2:42 ` Anthony Towns
2015-12-08 4:58 ` Anthony Towns
2015-12-08 5:21 ` Gregory Maxwell
2015-12-08 6:54 ` Anthony Towns
2016-01-18 12:02 ` Anthony Towns
2016-01-22 9:46 ` Anthony Towns
2015-12-08 11:07 ` Wladimir J. van der Laan
2015-12-08 11:14 ` Jorge Timón
2015-12-08 15:12 ` Gavin Andresen
2015-12-08 15:55 ` Justus Ranvier
2015-12-08 17:41 ` Mark Friedenbach
2015-12-08 18:43 ` Justus Ranvier
2015-12-08 19:08 ` Tier Nolan
2015-12-08 19:31 ` Gregory Maxwell
2015-12-08 23:40 ` Jonathan Toomim
2015-12-08 23:48 ` Luke Dashjr
2015-12-09 0:54 ` Jonathan Toomim
2015-12-08 23:50 ` Jorge Timón
2015-12-09 0:56 ` Jonathan Toomim
2015-12-08 23:59 ` Gregory Maxwell
2015-12-09 0:58 ` Jorge Timón
2015-12-09 1:02 ` Jorge Timón
2015-12-09 1:09 ` Gavin Andresen
2015-12-09 1:31 ` Gregory Maxwell
2015-12-09 4:44 ` Ryan Butler
2015-12-09 6:29 ` Gregory Maxwell
2015-12-09 6:36 ` Ryan Butler
2015-12-09 6:59 ` Mark Friedenbach
2015-12-09 7:17 ` Gregory Maxwell
2015-12-09 7:54 ` Jorge Timón
2015-12-09 8:03 ` Gregory Maxwell
2015-12-09 8:46 ` Mark Friedenbach
2015-12-09 11:08 ` Jorge Timón
2015-12-09 16:40 ` Gavin Andresen
2015-12-11 16:18 ` Jorge Timón
2015-12-11 16:43 ` Gavin Andresen
2015-12-12 5:13 ` digitsu
2015-12-12 15:18 ` Mark Friedenbach
2015-12-14 11:21 ` Jonathan Toomim [this message]
2015-12-14 12:44 ` Adam Back
2015-12-09 4:51 ` Anthony Towns
2015-12-09 14:51 ` Chris
[not found] ` <CAPWm=eUomq6SBC0ky0WSs5=_G942vigm4RmgYuq0O-yJ-vqC2A@mail.gmail.com>
[not found] ` <CAPg+sBig9O5+he0PWhTkX5iin14QLz5+eCCu6KfwU=DxntKYtg@mail.gmail.com>
2015-12-21 4:33 ` Pieter Wuille
2015-12-21 4:42 ` Justus Ranvier
2015-12-21 4:44 ` Alex Morcos
2015-12-21 4:50 ` Mark Friedenbach
2015-12-21 5:29 ` Douglas Roark
2015-12-21 5:21 ` Btc Drak
2015-12-21 8:07 ` Anthony Towns
2015-12-21 9:56 ` Jorge Timón
2015-12-08 23:48 ` Jonathan Toomim
2015-12-09 0:23 ` Gregory Maxwell
[not found] ` <CAAS2fgRP8bLWZoKR9-iJS-2RKTGQQ9NG-LpAfa2BOdcR=GuB_A@mail.gmail.com>
2015-12-09 0:40 ` Jonathan Toomim
2015-12-09 12:28 Daniele Pinna
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=3292B7BA-13A8-4BD9-AB08-4F5EBE534771@toom.im \
--to=j@toom$(echo .)im \
--cc=bitcoin-dev@lists$(echo .)linuxfoundation.org \
/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