I was wondering why this multi-layer multi-block filter proposal isn't getting any comment, is it because not asking all filters is leaking information? Thanks Il giorno ven 18 mag 2018 alle ore 08:29 Karl-Johan Alm via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> ha scritto: > On Fri, May 18, 2018 at 12:25 AM, Matt Corallo via bitcoin-dev > wrote: > > In general, I'm concerned about the size of the filters making existing > > SPV clients less willing to adopt BIP 158 instead of the existing bloom > > filter garbage and would like to see a further exploration of ways to > > split out filters to make them less bandwidth intensive. Some further > > ideas we should probably play with before finalizing moving forward is > > providing filters for certain script templates, eg being able to only > > get outputs that are segwit version X or other similar ideas. > > There is also the idea of multi-block filters. The idea is that light > clients would download a pair of filters for blocks X..X+255 and > X+256..X+511, check if they have any matches and then grab pairs for > any that matched, e.g. X..X+127 & X+128..X+255 if left matched, and > iterate down until it ran out of hits-in-a-row or it got down to > single-block level. > > This has an added benefit where you can accept a slightly higher false > positive rate for bigger ranges, because the probability of a specific > entry having a false positive in each filter is (empirically speaking) > independent. I.e. with a FP probability of 1% in the 256 range block > and a FP probability of 0.1% in the 128 range block would mean the > probability is actually 0.001%. > > Wrote about this here: https://bc-2.jp/bfd-profile.pdf (but the filter > type is different in my experiments) > _______________________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev > -- Riccardo Casatta - @RCasatta