Re: [bitcoin-dev] Low-bandwidth transaction relay

From: Jim Posen <jim.posen@gmail•com>
To: Gleb Naumenko <naumenko.gs@gmail•com>,
	 Bitcoin Protocol Discussion
	<bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Low-bandwidth transaction relay
Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2018 10:45:34 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CADZtCSjU78fO4bKcyc-sTT_H_wuugAd5PF3Ncom-4F2uFk_AnQ@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <9ab6e32e-db51-4ce4-8f3c-3a77f7b1f9bd@Spark>

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2568 bytes --]

Hey. This idea sounds quite interesting. It'd be helpful to see some more
numbers to evaluate it.

- How much bandwidth is consumed by redundant tx INVs currently? What is
this as a % of overall bandwidth usage?
- How would filtering txs through N=2 links affect network propagation?
This probably requires simulation to determine.
- Do you propose setting filters on inbound peers as well?

On Mon, Apr 2, 2018 at 3:18 PM, Gleb Naumenko via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org> wrote:

> Hi all,
> I have a couple of ideas regarding transaction relay protocol and wanted
> to share it with and probably get some feedback.
>
> I did some emulation and simulation and found out that around 90% of INV
> messages sent by public-IP nodes are idle (duplicate), obviously because
> each node creates 8 connections.  I also realized that sending INV messages
> is a significant part of the overall bandwidth consumed by a public-IP
> node. At a larger scale, this will result in people not able to run a
> public-IP node.
>
> My idea is in some sense similar to BIP37 but applied to public-IP nodes.
> Here I want to emphasize that all the nodes will still receive *all* of the
> transactions. A new protocol should also keep the same zero-trust,
> robustness, decentralization guarantees and latency.
>
> Idea: while joining the network, a new node agrees on some filter with
> each of 8 nodes it connects to. So that NewNode <-> Node_A will be used to
> relay only a subset of transactions, NewNode <-> Node_B for another subset.
> This will significantly decrease the redundancy.
>
> To keep the guarantees, I would keep some redundancy (for example, each
> transaction INV is sent over 2 links).
>
> To make it robust to attacks, I have 2 extensions in my mind:
> 1. Set reconciliation (for a subset of transactions) with *other* nodes.
> Getting a bloom filter of a subset of the mempool transactions from Node_B
> may help to figure out whether Node_A is malicious, very slow, etc.
> 2. Rotating the filters every N minutes (N < 10)
>
> I can see some issues with latency here, but I believe this problem has a
> solution.
>
> Feedback is appreciated!
>
> If you want to look at a draft of the proposal — please let me know.
> If there were any similar ideas — please let me know.
>
> Best,
> Gleb
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 3622 bytes --]