Re: [bitcoin-dev] Compact Block Relay BIP

Implemented a few of your suggestions. Also opened a formal pull request for the BIP at https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/389 and the code at https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8068. On 05/09/16 17:06, Pieter Wuille via bitcoin-dev wrote: > On 05/03/2016 12:13 AM, lf-lists at

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Compact Block Relay BIP

Replies inline. On May 10, 2016 5:23:55 PM EDT, Rusty Russell via bitcoin-dev wrote: >Gregory Maxwell writes: >> On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 5:28 AM, Rusty Russell via bitcoin-dev >> wrote: >>> I used

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Compact Block Relay BIP

Gregory Maxwell writes: > On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 5:28 AM, Rusty Russell via bitcoin-dev > wrote: >> I used variable-length bit encodings, and used the shortest encoding >> which is unique to you (including mempool). It's a little more work,

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Compact Block Relay BIP

[9 May 16 @ 6:40 PDT] For those interested in the hash collision attack discussion, it turns out there is a faster way to scan your set to find the collision: you’d keep a sorted list of the hashes for each TX you generate and then use binary search to check that list for a collision for each

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Compact Block Relay BIP

On Mon, May 9, 2016 at 11:37 PM, Peter R wrote: > It is a standard result that there are > m! / [n! (m-n)!] > ways of picking n numbers from a set of m numbers, so there are > > (2^32)! / [2! (2^32 - 2)!] ~ 2^63 > possible pairs in a set of 2^32 transactions. So wouldn’t

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Compact Block Relay BIP

Greg Maxwell wrote: > What are you talking about? You seem profoundly confused here... > > I obtain some txouts. I write a transaction spending them in malleable > form (e.g. sighash single and an op_return output).. then grind the > extra output to produce different hashes. After doing this

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Compact Block Relay BIP

Hi Pieter, > I tried to derive what length of short ids is actually necessary (some > write-up is on > https://gist.github.com/sipa/b2eb2e486156b5509ac711edd16153ed but it's > incomplete). > > For any reasonable numbers I can come up with (in a very wide range), > the number of bits needed is

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Compact Block Relay BIP

On 05/03/2016 12:13 AM, lf-lists at mattcorallo.com (Matt Corallo) wrote: > Hi all, > > The following is a BIP-formatted design spec for compact block relay > designed to limit on wire bytes during block relay. You can find the > latest version of this document at >

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Compact Block Relay BIP

On Mon, May 9, 2016 at 8:57 AM, Tom via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > The moderators failed to catch his aggressive tone while moderating my post > (see archives) for being too aggressive. > IIRC you were previously informed by moderators (on the same reddit

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Compact Block Relay BIP

On Monday 09 May 2016 13:40:55 Peter Todd wrote: > >> [It's a little disconcerting that you appear to be maintaining a fork > >> and are unaware of this.] > > > >ehm... > > Can you please explain why you moved the above part of gmaxwell's reply to > here, A personal attack had no place in the

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Compact Block Relay BIP

On Monday 09 May 2016 10:43:02 Gregory Maxwell wrote: > On Mon, May 9, 2016 at 9:35 AM, Tom Zander via bitcoin-dev > > wrote: > > You misunderstand the networking effects. > > The fact that your node is required to choose which one to set the > > announce >

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Compact Block Relay BIP

On Sunday, May 08, 2016 03:24:22 AM Matt Corallo wrote: > >> ===Intended Protocol Flow=== > > > > I'm not a fan of the solution that a CNode should keep state and talk to > > its remote nodes differently while announcing new blocks. > > Its too complicated and ultimately counter-productive. > >

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Compact Block Relay BIP

Interesting, can you provide some historical context around it so I understand better ? Actually I know that your relay's protocol (and about what I see in abstract) was about optimizing propagation time and not bandwidth. And I agree that bandwidth is what need to be optimized for nodes. So far

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Compact Block Relay BIP

Tom <t...@freedommail.ch <mailto:t...@freedommail.ch>> > To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>, Matt Corallo > <lf-li...@mattcorallo.com <mailto:lf-li...@mattcorallo.com>> > Cc: > Date: Fri, 06 May 2016

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Compact Block Relay BIP

t Corallo <lf-li...@mattcorallo.com> Cc: Date: Fri, 06 May 2016 13:31:15 +0100 Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Compact Block Relay BIP On Monday 02 May 2016 22:13:22 Matt Corallo via bitcoin-dev wrote: Thanks for putting in the time to make a spec! It looks good already, but I do think some more im