Re: [Bitcoin-development] Future Feature Proposal - getgist

2014-06-05 Thread Pieter Wuille
On Thu, Jun 5, 2014 at 7:43 PM, Richard Moore wrote: > I was considering names like getcheckpoints() to use the terminology that > already seemed to be in place, but they were too long :) > > I have been using getheaders() in my thick client to quickly grab all the > headers before downloading the

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Future Feature Proposal - getgist

2014-06-05 Thread Richard Moore
I was considering names like getcheckpoints() to use the terminology that already seemed to be in place, but they were too long :) I have been using getheaders() in my thick client to quickly grab all the headers before downloading the full blocks since I can grab more at a time. Even with getb

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Future Feature Proposal - getgist

2014-06-05 Thread Mark Friedenbach
The correct approach here is header hash-tree commitments which enable compact (logarithmic) SPV proofs that elide nearly all intervening headers since the last checkpoint. You could then query the hash tree for references to any of the headers you actually need. See this message for details: htt

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Future Feature Proposal - getgist

2014-06-04 Thread Mike Hearn
Why do you want to optimise this? getheaders is used by SPV clients not full nodes. SPV clients like bitcoinj can and do simply ship with gist files in them, then getheaders from the last "checkpoint" (I wish I hadn't reused terminology like that but this is what bitcoinj calls them). In practic

[Bitcoin-development] Future Feature Proposal - getgist

2014-06-04 Thread Richard Moore
Bitcoin development team, I recently started implementing my own Python full-node, and had an idea, so I’m prowling through BIP 001 for this proposal, which says to e-mail you kind folks to make sure the idea is original (enough) and that there aren’t other existing means to accomplish what I w