Matt, I saw your commit and immediately started using it for testing. Now I think the bitcoinj side needs some love because not one transaction is being confirmed (all just pending) when replaying the blockchain.
On 01/18/2013 05:38 PM, Mike Hearn wrote: > I'm thinking we should actually make the change we talked about before > and have the filtered block sent before the transaction data. > > For one, it's not intuitive (API wise) that you'd get a callback > saying "new pending tx" immediately before another callback saying "tx > was confirmed", but that's what the current setup makes most natural. > To fix it we'd have to notice that a tx message wasn't requested by > us, buffer it, and wait for the corresponding filteredblock message. > It seems cleaner to receive a filteredblock and then for any tx that > matches it, attach it to the FilteredBlock object and wait until it is > full up, then pass it to the wallet code all at once. > > Another issue is that to risk analyze unconfirmed transactions you > really have to download all dependencies. That has to be triggered by > seeing an unconfirmed transaction. It's dumb to start this process for > a tx that is actually in the chain, so you need to have some notion of > whether it came from a filtered block anyway. I only realized this > today. > > I think when we discussed this before, the justification for having it > work the current way was that it was simpler to integrate with the SPV > client code if it was done this way around. But I don't think it's > really simpler. There are enough odd side effects of doing it this > way, that I feel it'd be better to tweak the protocol now whilst we > have the chance. > > On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 4:00 PM, Matt Corallo <bitcoin-l...@bluematt.me> > wrote: >> Actually, there is one more minor algorithmic change I would like to >> make to the way the hash function is computed really quick before it >> gets merged, I'll have that finished up by the end of today. >> >> Matt >> >> On Wed, 2013-01-16 at 11:43 +0100, Mike Hearn wrote: >>> Matts latest code has been tested by Andreas and seems to work >>> correctly. He had to extend the client a bit to refresh the filter >>> every 25k blocks because even with the extra flag, eventually the >>> filter degrades into uselessness, but it did still improve the >>> situation quite a bit. >>> >>> Because it's unit tested, been reviewed by me several times, has an >>> interoperable implementation that has also been tested by Andreas in a >>> build of his smartphone app, I'm going to ACK the current code and >>> request that it be merged in to 0.8. What do you say Gavin? >>> >>> The next step after that would be profiling. It's a big performance >>> improvement for SPV clients already, but not as much as I anticipated. >>> I suspect there's a simple bottleneck or missed optimization >>> somewhere. But that can obviously come post-0.8 >> >> > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Master HTML5, CSS3, ASP.NET, MVC, AJAX, Knockout.js, Web API and > much more. Get web development skills now with LearnDevNow - > 350+ hours of step-by-step video tutorials by Microsoft MVPs and experts. > SALE $99.99 this month only -- learn more at: > http://p.sf.net/sfu/learnmore_122812 > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Master Visual Studio, SharePoint, SQL, ASP.NET, C# 2012, HTML5, CSS, MVC, Windows 8 Apps, JavaScript and much more. Keep your skills current with LearnDevNow - 3,200 step-by-step video tutorials by Microsoft MVPs and experts. SALE $99.99 this month only -- learn more at: http://p.sf.net/sfu/learnmore_122912 _______________________________________________ Bitcoin-development mailing list Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
