> the need to have transmitted the transaction list [..] first 32 bits per transaction is at least double the communication overhead of the simple approach, and only offers a bound on the probability of needing a round trip.
On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 2:29 PM, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxw...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 1:47 PM, Kaz Wesley <kezi...@gmail.com> wrote: >> trip to request the missing tx; if we could somehow get the "What's >> the Difference" approach to effectively operate on full transactions >> instead > > I explain how to do this on the network block coding page. > > Given that you know the sizes and orders of the transactions (e.g. > from a reconciliation step first), the sender sends non-syndromic > forward error correcting code data somewhat larger than their estimate > of how much data the user is missing. Then you drop the data you know > into place and then recover the missing blocks using the fec. > > There is no overhead in this approach except for FEC blocks that are > incompletely missing (and so must be completely discarded), and the > need to have the transmitted the transaction list and sizes first. > (note, that just more bandwidth, not an additional round trip). ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Infragistics Professional Build stunning WinForms apps today! Reboot your WinForms applications with our WinForms controls. Build a bridge from your legacy apps to the future. http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=153845071&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk _______________________________________________ Bitcoin-development mailing list Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
