On August 6, 2015 8:42:38 PM GMT+02:00, Gregory Maxwell via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: >On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 6:17 PM, Tom Harding via bitcoin-dev ><bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: >> - Will the relay network at least validate block version numbers in >the >> future? > >It already validates block version numbers. > >It only relays valid transactions. > >Although, the block relaying itself is explicitly "unvalidated" and >the software client can only usefully be used with a mempool >maintaining full node (otherwise it doesn't provide much value, >because the node must wait to validate the things). ... but that >doesn't actually mean no validation at all is performed, many >stateless checks are performed. > >On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 5:16 PM, Sergio Demian Lerner via bitcoin-dev ><bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: >> Is there any up to date documentation about TheBlueMatt relay network >> including what kind of block compression it is currently doing? >(apart from >> the source code) > >I don't know if Matt has an extensive writeup. But the basic >optimization it performs is trivial. I wouldn't call it compression, >though it does have some analog to RTP "header compression". > >All it does is relay transactions verified by a local node and keeps a >FIFO of the relayed transactions in both directions, which is >synchronous on each side. > >When a block is recieved on either side, it replaces transactions with >their indexes in the FIFO and relays it along. Transactions not in the >fifo are escaped and sent whole. On the other side the block is >reconstructed using the stored data and handed to the node (where the >preforwarded transactions would have also been pre-validated). > >There is some more than basic elaboration for resource management >(e.g. multiple queues for different transaction sizes)-- and more
No, just one queue, but it has a count-of-oversize-txn-limit, in addition to a size. >recently using block templates to learn transaction priority be a bit >more immune to spam attacks, but its fairly simple. Except it doesn't really work :( (see https://github.com/TheBlueMatt/RelayNode/issues/12#issuecomment-128234446) >Much better could be done about intelligently managing the queues or >efficiently transmitting the membership sets, etc. It's just >basically the simplest thing that isn't completely stupid. Patches welcome :) (read the issues list first... Rewriting the protocol from scratch is by far not the biggest win here). Matt _______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
