From: Andreas Schildbach <andreas@schildbach•de>
To: bitcoin-development@lists•sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Draft BIP for Bloom filtering
Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2013 10:51:04 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <50FA6C88.1030102@schildbach.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CANEZrP3FMbCZzT0Lfajv7T=F=Sjv1pNW-f3JVyrZLH5tQxYfmw@mail.gmail.com>
Matt, I saw your commit and immediately started using it for testing.
Now I think the bitcoinj side needs some love because not one
transaction is being confirmed (all just pending) when replaying the
blockchain.
On 01/18/2013 05:38 PM, Mike Hearn wrote:
> I'm thinking we should actually make the change we talked about before
> and have the filtered block sent before the transaction data.
>
> For one, it's not intuitive (API wise) that you'd get a callback
> saying "new pending tx" immediately before another callback saying "tx
> was confirmed", but that's what the current setup makes most natural.
> To fix it we'd have to notice that a tx message wasn't requested by
> us, buffer it, and wait for the corresponding filteredblock message.
> It seems cleaner to receive a filteredblock and then for any tx that
> matches it, attach it to the FilteredBlock object and wait until it is
> full up, then pass it to the wallet code all at once.
>
> Another issue is that to risk analyze unconfirmed transactions you
> really have to download all dependencies. That has to be triggered by
> seeing an unconfirmed transaction. It's dumb to start this process for
> a tx that is actually in the chain, so you need to have some notion of
> whether it came from a filtered block anyway. I only realized this
> today.
>
> I think when we discussed this before, the justification for having it
> work the current way was that it was simpler to integrate with the SPV
> client code if it was done this way around. But I don't think it's
> really simpler. There are enough odd side effects of doing it this
> way, that I feel it'd be better to tweak the protocol now whilst we
> have the chance.
>
> On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 4:00 PM, Matt Corallo <bitcoin-list@bluematt•me> wrote:
>> Actually, there is one more minor algorithmic change I would like to
>> make to the way the hash function is computed really quick before it
>> gets merged, I'll have that finished up by the end of today.
>>
>> Matt
>>
>> On Wed, 2013-01-16 at 11:43 +0100, Mike Hearn wrote:
>>> Matts latest code has been tested by Andreas and seems to work
>>> correctly. He had to extend the client a bit to refresh the filter
>>> every 25k blocks because even with the extra flag, eventually the
>>> filter degrades into uselessness, but it did still improve the
>>> situation quite a bit.
>>>
>>> Because it's unit tested, been reviewed by me several times, has an
>>> interoperable implementation that has also been tested by Andreas in a
>>> build of his smartphone app, I'm going to ACK the current code and
>>> request that it be merged in to 0.8. What do you say Gavin?
>>>
>>> The next step after that would be profiling. It's a big performance
>>> improvement for SPV clients already, but not as much as I anticipated.
>>> I suspect there's a simple bottleneck or missed optimization
>>> somewhere. But that can obviously come post-0.8
>>
>>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Master HTML5, CSS3, ASP.NET, MVC, AJAX, Knockout.js, Web API and
> much more. Get web development skills now with LearnDevNow -
> 350+ hours of step-by-step video tutorials by Microsoft MVPs and experts.
> SALE $99.99 this month only -- learn more at:
> http://p.sf.net/sfu/learnmore_122812
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-01-19 10:06 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 34+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-10-24 15:56 Mike Hearn
2012-10-24 16:22 ` Pieter Wuille
2012-10-24 16:35 ` Mike Hearn
2012-10-24 17:11 ` Pieter Wuille
2012-10-24 18:54 ` Gavin Andresen
2012-10-24 19:00 ` Matt Corallo
2012-10-24 19:10 ` Mike Hearn
2012-10-24 20:29 ` Gavin Andresen
2012-10-24 20:58 ` Mike Hearn
2012-10-24 21:55 ` Jeff Garzik
2012-10-25 16:56 ` Gregory Maxwell
2012-10-25 17:01 ` Gregory Maxwell
2012-10-26 14:01 ` Mike Hearn
2012-10-26 14:17 ` Gregory Maxwell
2012-10-26 14:21 ` Mike Hearn
2012-10-26 14:34 ` Gregory Maxwell
2012-11-06 19:14 ` Pieter Wuille
2012-11-21 15:15 ` Pieter Wuille
2012-11-21 18:38 ` Matt Corallo
2012-11-27 21:10 ` Pieter Wuille
2013-01-10 15:21 ` Mike Hearn
2013-01-11 3:59 ` Matt Corallo
2013-01-11 5:02 ` Jeff Garzik
2013-01-11 14:11 ` Mike Hearn
2013-01-11 14:13 ` Mike Hearn
2013-01-16 10:43 ` Mike Hearn
2013-01-16 15:00 ` Matt Corallo
2013-01-18 16:38 ` Mike Hearn
2013-01-19 9:51 ` Andreas Schildbach [this message]
2013-01-30 11:09 ` Mike Hearn
2013-01-30 11:13 ` Mike Hearn
2013-02-06 16:33 ` Mike Hearn
2013-02-06 16:45 ` Gregory Maxwell
2013-02-20 12:44 ` Mike Hearn
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=50FA6C88.1030102@schildbach.de \
--to=andreas@schildbach$(echo .)de \
--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