Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Draft BIP for Bloom filtering

From: Gavin Andresen <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2012 14:54:15 -0400

RE: sharing parts of the merkle branches when returning a 'merkleblock' :

I think I agree that complicating the BIP for what should be a very
rare case (more than a handful of transactions in a block match the
transactions in your wallet) is the right decision.

I want to make sure I'm understanding this bit correctly:

"In addition, because a merkleblock message contains only a list of
transaction hashes, any transactions that the requesting node hasn't
either received or announced with an inv will be automatically sent as
well. This avoids a slow roundtrip that would otherwise be required
(receive hashes, didn't see some of these transactions yet, ask for
them)."

Requiring serving/relaying nodes to keep track of which transactions
they have or have not sent to their peers makes me nervous. I think
requiring an extra 'inv' round-trip would be simpler to implement and
less likely to lead to some kind of DoS attack.

-- 
--
Gavin Andresen