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 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Everyone hates slow websites. So do we. Make your web apps faster with AppDynamics Download AppDynamics Lite for free today: http://p.sf.net/sfu/appdyn_sfd2d_oct _______________________________________________ Bitcoin-development mailing list Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
