> What if instead of trying to decide up front which subset of elements will > be most useful to include in the filters, and the size tradeoff, we let the > full-node decide which subsets of elements it serves filters for?
This is already the case. The current "track" is to add new service bits (while we're in the uncommitted phase) to introduce new fitler types. Light clients can then filter out nodes before even connecting to them. -- Laolu On Mon, May 21, 2018 at 1:35 AM Johan Torås Halseth <joha...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi all, > > Most light wallets will want to download the minimum amount of data > required to operate, which means they would ideally download the smallest > possible filters containing the subset of elements they need. > > What if instead of trying to decide up front which subset of elements will > be most useful to include in the filters, and the size tradeoff, we let the > full-node decide which subsets of elements it serves filters for? > > For instance, a full node would advertise that it could serve filters for > the subsets 110 (txid+script+outpoint), 100 (txid only), 011 (script+outpoint) > etc. A light client could then choose to download the minimal filter type > covering its needs. > > The obvious benefit of this would be minimal bandwidth usage for the light > client, but there are also some less obvious ones. We wouldn’t have to > decide up front what each filter type should contain, only the possible > elements a filter can contain (more can be added later without breaking > existing clients). This, I think, would let the most served filter types > grow organically, with full-node implementations coming with sane defaults > for served filter types (maybe even all possible types as long as the > number of elements is small), letting their operator add/remove types at > will. > > The main disadvantage of this as I see it, is that there’s an exponential > blowup in the number of possible filter types in the number of element > types. However, this would let us start out small with only the elements we > need, and in the worst case the node operators just choose to serve the > subsets corresponding to what now is called “regular” + “extended” filters > anyway, requiring no more resources. > > This would also give us some data on what is the most widely used filter > types, which could be useful in making the decision on what should be part > of filters to eventually commit to in blocks. > > - Johan > On Sat, May 19, 2018 at 5:12, Olaoluwa Osuntokun via bitcoin-dev < > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > > On Thu, May 17, 2018 at 2:44 PM Jim Posen via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin- > >> Monitoring inputs by scriptPubkey vs input-txid also has a massive >>> advantage for parallel filtering: You can usually known your pubkeys >>> well in advance, but if you have to change what you're watching block >>> N+1 for based on the txids that paid you in N you can't filter them >>> in parallel. >>> >> >> Yes, I'll grant that this is a benefit of your suggestion. >> > > Yeah parallel filtering would be pretty nice. We've implemented a serial > filtering for btcwallet [1] for the use-case of rescanning after a seed > phrase import. Parallel filtering would help here, but also we don't yet > take advantage of batch querying for the filters themselves. This would > speed up the scanning by quite a bit. > > I really like the filtering model though, it really simplifies the code, > and we can leverage identical logic for btcd (which has RPCs to fetch the > filters) as well. > > [1]: > https://github.com/Roasbeef/btcwallet/blob/master/chain/neutrino.go#L180 > > _______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing list > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev > >
_______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
