* [bitcoin-dev] [RFC] IBLT block testing implementation
@ 2015-06-23 5:53 Rusty Russell
2015-06-25 21:02 ` Kalle Rosenbaum
0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: Rusty Russell @ 2015-06-23 5:53 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: bitcoin-dev
Hi all,
I've come up with a model for using IBLT to communicate blocks
between peers. The gory details can be found on github: it's a
standalone C++ app for testing not integrated with bitcoin.
https://github.com/rustyrussell/bitcoin-iblt
Assumptions and details:
1. The base idea comes from Gavin's Block Propagation gist:
https://gist.github.com/gavinandresen/e20c3b5a1d4b97f79ac2
2. It relies on similarity in mempools, with some selection hints. This
is designed to be as flexible as possible to make fewest assumptions
on tx selection policy.
3. The selection hints are: minimum fee-per-byte (fixed point) and
bitmaps of included-despite-that and rejected-despite-that. The
former covers things like child-pays-for-parent and the priority
area. The latter covers other cases like Eligius censoring "spam",
bitcoin version differences, etc.
4. Cost to represent these exceptional added or excluded transactions is
(on average) log2(transactions in mempool) bits.
5. At Peiter Wuille's suggestion, it is designed to be reencoded between
nodes. It seems fast enough for that, and neighboring nodes should
have most similar mempools.
6. It performs reasonably well on my 100 block sample in bitcoin-corpus
(chosen to include a mempool spike):
Average block range (bytes): 7988-999829
Block size mean (bytes): 401926
Minimal decodable BLT size range (bytes): 314-386361
Minimal decodable BLT size mean (bytes): 13265
7. Actual results will have to be worse than these minima, as peers will
have to oversize the IBLT to have reasonable chance of success.
8. There is more work to do, and more investigation to be done, but I
don't expect more than a 25% reduction in this "ideal minimum"
result.
Special thanks to Kalle Rosenbaum for helping investigate IBLTs with me
last year.
Cheers,
Rusty.
PS. I work for Blockstream. And I'm supposed to be working on
Lightning, not this.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread* Re: [bitcoin-dev] [RFC] IBLT block testing implementation 2015-06-23 5:53 [bitcoin-dev] [RFC] IBLT block testing implementation Rusty Russell @ 2015-06-25 21:02 ` Kalle Rosenbaum 2015-06-27 4:46 ` Rusty Russell 0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread From: Kalle Rosenbaum @ 2015-06-25 21:02 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Rusty Russell; +Cc: bitcoin-dev [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4569 bytes --] 2015-06-23 7:53 GMT+02:00 Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp•com.au>: > Hi all, > > I've come up with a model for using IBLT to communicate blocks > between peers. The gory details can be found on github: it's a > standalone C++ app for testing not integrated with bitcoin. > > https://github.com/rustyrussell/bitcoin-iblt Good to see that you're working on this. Really exciting! I want to take the opportunity to link to my previous work on IBLTs, for those that haven't seen it, where I investigate the behaviour of the IBLT when changing different parameters, like cell count, hashFunctionCount etc: https://github.com/kallerosenbaum/bitcoin-iblt/wiki From glancing over your implementation, I see that you don't use a keyHashSum, in fact you don't use a key at all, but only a concatenatenation of (txid48, fragid, tx-chunk) as value. Here the txid48+fragid functions as a kind of keyHashSum. I think this might be a very good idea, If you have a false positive with count == 1, then you would probably detect it if fragid is outside reasonable limit from from base_fragid. Did you implement your idea to remove all the count==1 fagments in ascending order of (fragid-base_fragid)? Anyhow, I think we should make some more comparable tests, just as you proposed last year when I didn't reply, sorry... My code is a more straight forward implementation of the IBLT paper (http://arxiv.org/pdf/1101.2245.pdf) and encoding blocks is done pretty much as Gavin proposed in his gist. That should function as a baseline so that we can validate that your optimizations actually work. Please contact me directly if you are interested in that, and we'll figure something out. More comments/questions inline: > > Assumptions and details: > > 1. The base idea comes from Gavin's Block Propagation gist: > https://gist.github.com/gavinandresen/e20c3b5a1d4b97f79ac2 > > 2. It relies on similarity in mempools, with some selection hints. This > is designed to be as flexible as possible to make fewest assumptions > on tx selection policy. > > 3. The selection hints are: minimum fee-per-byte (fixed point) and > bitmaps of included-despite-that and rejected-despite-that. The > former covers things like child-pays-for-parent and the priority > area. The latter covers other cases like Eligius censoring "spam", > bitcoin version differences, etc. > There is a chance that the bit prefix of the added or removed tx is not unique within the receiver's mempool. In that case the receiver can probably just use the earliest matching transaction and hope for the best. If not -> bad luck. Is that how you do it? > 4. Cost to represent these exceptional added or excluded transactions is > (on average) log2(transactions in mempool) bits. These exceptional tx *could* instead be encoded in the IBLT, just as if they were unknown differences. Your bitmaps is probably a more compact representation, but it's also more complex. > > 5. At Peiter Wuille's suggestion, it is designed to be reencoded between > nodes. It seems fast enough for that, and neighboring nodes should > have most similar mempools. > What is the purpose of reencoding when relaying? Is that to improve the failure probability as new tx may have arrived in the mempool of the intermediary node? > 6. It performs reasonably well on my 100 block sample in bitcoin-corpus > (chosen to include a mempool spike): > > Average block range (bytes): 7988-999829 > Block size mean (bytes): 401926 > > Minimal decodable BLT size range (bytes): 314-386361 > Minimal decodable BLT size mean (bytes): 13265 > > 7. Actual results will have to be worse than these minima, as peers will > have to oversize the IBLT to have reasonable chance of success. > Yes, I have made some analysis on this here: https://github.com/kallerosenbaum/bitcoin-iblt/wiki/FailureProbability. We use quite different data structures for encoding blocks in IBLT, but it might apply to your implementation as well. An interesting result is that the space saving percentage actually increases as blocks grow. > 8. There is more work to do, and more investigation to be done, but I > don't expect more than a 25% reduction in this "ideal minimum" > result. > > Special thanks to Kalle Rosenbaum for helping investigate IBLTs with me > last year. Thank you too! Regards, Kalle > > Cheers, > Rusty. > PS. I work for Blockstream. And I'm supposed to be working on > Lightning, not this. [-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 5770 bytes --] ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: [bitcoin-dev] [RFC] IBLT block testing implementation 2015-06-25 21:02 ` Kalle Rosenbaum @ 2015-06-27 4:46 ` Rusty Russell 0 siblings, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread From: Rusty Russell @ 2015-06-27 4:46 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Kalle Rosenbaum; +Cc: bitcoin-dev Kalle Rosenbaum <kalle@rosenbaum•se> writes: > 2015-06-23 7:53 GMT+02:00 Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp•com.au>: >> Hi all, >> >> I've come up with a model for using IBLT to communicate blocks >> between peers. The gory details can be found on github: it's a >> standalone C++ app for testing not integrated with bitcoin. >> >> https://github.com/rustyrussell/bitcoin-iblt > > Good to see that you're working on this. Really exciting! > > I want to take the opportunity to link to my previous work on IBLTs, for > those that haven't seen it, where I investigate the behaviour of the IBLT > when changing different parameters, like cell count, hashFunctionCount etc: > https://github.com/kallerosenbaum/bitcoin-iblt/wiki Yep, I stole the hashFunctionCount = 3 straight from there, same with 64-byte bucket contents. >>From glancing over your implementation, I see that you don't use a > keyHashSum, in fact you don't use a key at all, but only a > concatenatenation of (txid48, fragid, tx-chunk) as value. Here the > txid48+fragid functions as a kind of keyHashSum. I think this might be a > very good idea, > > If you have a false positive with count == 1, then you would probably > detect it if fragid is outside reasonable limit from from base_fragid. Did > you implement your idea to remove all the count==1 fagments in ascending > order of (fragid-base_fragid)? Yep! I keep records of all the 1 and -1 buckets; separate lists depending on how far they are off the base. Lists for 0, 1, 2, ... 7, then powers of 2. See todo in iblt.cpp. > Anyhow, I think we should make some more comparable tests, just as you > proposed last year when I didn't reply, sorry... My code is a more straight > forward implementation of the IBLT paper (http://arxiv.org/pdf/1101.2245.pdf) > and encoding blocks is done pretty much as Gavin proposed in his gist. That > should function as a baseline so that we can validate that your > optimizations actually work. Please contact me directly if you are > interested in that, and we'll figure something out. Absolutely, will do that offline. > More comments/questions inline: > >> >> Assumptions and details: >> >> 1. The base idea comes from Gavin's Block Propagation gist: >> https://gist.github.com/gavinandresen/e20c3b5a1d4b97f79ac2 >> >> 2. It relies on similarity in mempools, with some selection hints. This >> is designed to be as flexible as possible to make fewest assumptions >> on tx selection policy. >> >> 3. The selection hints are: minimum fee-per-byte (fixed point) and >> bitmaps of included-despite-that and rejected-despite-that. The >> former covers things like child-pays-for-parent and the priority >> area. The latter covers other cases like Eligius censoring "spam", >> bitcoin version differences, etc. >> > > There is a chance that the bit prefix of the added or removed tx is not > unique within the receiver's mempool. In that case the receiver can > probably just use the earliest matching transaction and hope for the best. > If not -> bad luck. Is that how you do it? No; they add or remove all matching. If they add too many, that's the easy case, of course. They can't remove too many (since they know that bit prefix was unique on the other end). >> 4. Cost to represent these exceptional added or excluded transactions is >> (on average) log2(transactions in mempool) bits. > > These exceptional tx *could* instead be encoded in the IBLT, just as if > they were unknown differences. Your bitmaps is probably a more compact > representation, but it's also more complex. It's pretty easy to cut the bitmaps to zero and test this (comment them out in wire_encode.cpp, for example). But the overhead of IBLT is some factor greater than txsize (need to measure that factor, too!); whereas these are a log(#txs-in-mempool) bits. >> 5. At Peiter Wuille's suggestion, it is designed to be reencoded between >> nodes. It seems fast enough for that, and neighboring nodes should >> have most similar mempools. > > What is the purpose of reencoding when relaying? Is that to improve the > failure probability as new tx may have arrived in the mempool of the > intermediary node? Yep, and estimation ability. The theory is that adjacent nodes will have closer mempools, allowing for smaller IBLTs. The size of mempool differences for each block can be fed back, so you have an idea of the likely delta to peers (ie. add that to the actual difference between your mempool and the new block, to estimate the amount of IBLT reconstruction required). >> 6. It performs reasonably well on my 100 block sample in bitcoin-corpus >> (chosen to include a mempool spike): >> >> Average block range (bytes): 7988-999829 >> Block size mean (bytes): 401926 >> >> Minimal decodable BLT size range (bytes): 314-386361 >> Minimal decodable BLT size mean (bytes): 13265 >> >> 7. Actual results will have to be worse than these minima, as peers will >> have to oversize the IBLT to have reasonable chance of success. >> > > Yes, I have made some analysis on this here: > https://github.com/kallerosenbaum/bitcoin-iblt/wiki/FailureProbability. We > use quite different data structures for encoding blocks in IBLT, but it > might apply to your implementation as well. An interesting result is that > the space saving percentage actually increases as blocks grow. Let's pick a 5% as our failure target (given most nodes will get blocks from more than 1 peer, and our other estimates of mempool differences will be conservative). Seems like 16/16 transactions takes ~400 cells for recovery, 64/64 takes ~1400, 128/128 takes ~2480, 256/256 says ~4600. Using that 128/128 => 198k number, and your txs were about 300B, that implies an overhead of 2.6, right? We're probably better estimating in terms of "cells recovered" (ie. sum of cells for txs which we were missing, plus number of txs we added erroneously). Cheers, Rusty. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2015-06-27 4:47 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 3+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed) -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2015-06-23 5:53 [bitcoin-dev] [RFC] IBLT block testing implementation Rusty Russell 2015-06-25 21:02 ` Kalle Rosenbaum 2015-06-27 4:46 ` Rusty Russell
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox