Segregated IBLT

I was just wondering if it would make sense when we have SW to also make Segregated IBLT? Segregating transactions from signatures and then tune the parameters such that transactions have a slightly higher guarantee and save a bit of space on the signatures side.

IBLT should of course, most of the time, convey all transactions _and_ all signatures. However, in suboptimal situations, at least the receiving miner will be more likely to have all the transactions, just possibly not all the signatures.

Assuming the miner was already planning on SPV mining anyway, at least now she knows which transactions to remove from her mempool, taking away an excuse to mine an empty block. And she can still verify most of the signatures too (whatever % could be recovered from the IBLT).

I guess this does not improve the worst adversarial case for IBLT block propagation, but it should improve the effectiveness in cases where the "normal" IBLT would fail to deliver all transactions. Transactions without signatures is better than no transactions at all, for a miner that's eager to start on the next block, right? In "optimal" cases it would reduce the size of the IBLT.

Sorry if this was already suggested.


--
Jannes

On 10 December 2015 at 13:54, Tamas Blummer via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
Note that the unused space in coin base input script allows us to soft-fork an additional SW Merkle tree root into the design,
therefore please make sure the new SW data structure also has a new slot for future extension.

Tamas Blummer

_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev