{"type":"rich","version":"1.0","author_name":"npub1dtr22xd42nv07un2xq0rmtkqkjylgsmexau0anxxafa9xmmn2ncshu7wrs","author_url":"https://nostr.ae/npub1dtr22xd42nv07un2xq0rmtkqkjylgsmexau0anxxafa9xmmn2ncshu7wrs","provider_name":"njump","provider_url":"https://nostr.ae","html":"📅 Original date posted:2012-09-10\n📝 Original message:On Monday, September 10, 2012 3:07:52 PM Matthew Mitchell wrote:\n\u003e Here is a BIP draft for improving the block relaying and validation so that\n\u003e it can be done in parallel and so that redundancy can be removed. This\n\u003e becomes more beneficial the larger the block sizes are.\n\u003e \n\u003e https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/User:MatthewLM/ImprovedBlockRelayingProposal\n\nMost of the problem with block propagation lies in implementation, not \nprotocol... Distributing missing transaction on an as-needed basis is a \npossible improvement at the protocol level, but there hasn't (AFAIK) been any \nresearch into whether the little benefit outweighs the cost yet. In any case, \nI don't see why 6 new messages are needed instead of simply adding a single \nnew type to getinv?"}