I actually implemented parts of the header+ v<tx> stuff in a branch with my bloom filter stuff, you can see it here: https://github.com/TheBlueMatt/bitcoin/commits/bloom%2Brelayblock Its pretty stupid and would be pretty easy to DoS/get it stuck/etc, but in theory it works. I don't see much reason why we'd need anything significantly more complicated, but maybe there is a use-case I'm missing?
Matt On Mon, 2012-09-10 at 11:14 -0400, Gregory Maxwell wrote: > On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 11:07 AM, Matthew Mitchell > <matthewmitch...@godofgod.co.uk> wrote: > > Here is a BIP draft for improving the block relaying and validation so that > > it can be done in parallel and so that redundancy can be removed. This > > becomes more beneficial the larger the block sizes are. > > > > https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/User:MatthewLM/ImprovedBlockRelayingProposal > > Why does this focus on actually sending the hash tree? The block > header + transaction list + transactions a node doesn't already know > (often just the coinbase) is enough. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ _______________________________________________ Bitcoin-development mailing list Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
