rich1.0npub1e46n428mcyfwznl7nlsf6d3s7rhlwm9x3cmkuqzt3emmdpadmkaqqjxmcuhttps://nostr.ae/npub1e46n428mcyfwznl7nlsf6d3s7rhlwm9x3cmkuqzt3emmdpadmkaqqjxmcunjumphttps://nostr.ae📅 Original date posted:2012-09-10 📝 Original message:It seems to me the whole idea of segmenting blocks would add very little (to nothing) with any sane block size. Sure, if a block were to be 10GB, it may make sense. However, even in that case, it would be easier to relay a list of tx hashes (which may be a bit expensive) and txes separately instead of using a notion of block segments. That said, I don't see blocks ever being that large and if they do become that large, as only a few full nodes will remain, upgrading their protocol would be (relatively) easy. I would instead encourage focus on decreasing block relay times for the current network and as blocks approach 10MB (so that they can approach 10MB). Matt On Mon, 2012-09-10 at 20:34 +0100, Matthew Mitchell wrote: > Do you mean getdata? Here is the reason for the 6 new messages: > > > getseginv,seginv - These are for learning about what segments of a > block a node has. Else you could remove these messages and simply have > nodes advertise blocks via inventory messages. In this case nodes > would have to wait until they had fully received a block before > relaying anything. No longer is there a benefit with nodes being able > to relay segments of blocks before they have received the entire > block. > > > gettreelevel,treelevel - These are to received a level of > the merle tree. Instead you might use get data but gettreelevel is > more compact than get data and is clearly differentiates itself as > part of the new protocol. Perhaps these messages could include the > block headers alongside the hashes and you could request many at once > like with the getheaders message? If you skip these messages, then you > could verify the transactions at the end but there would be problems > when peers give bad segments where data would need to be downloaded > again. > > > getsegment,segment - These are clearly important to request and > receive segments for the blocks. These allows for nodes > to download arbitrary segments of blocks. The optimum number of > segments could be calculated by node software using measurements of > download speeds and latency times, the number of connections and how > likely redundancy is to occur. If a node is up-to-date and likely has > many of the transactions in blocks, it can start asking for the > deepest merle level (tx hashes) and ask nodes for segments, avoiding > transactions it already has. > > > I'll get around to doing measurements myself sometime to estimate the > benefit of this proposal. It will certainly be beneficial when block > sizes reach some size but not much is really known except what can be > assumed/guessed. > > > I should also mention the bitcointalk topic > here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=103295.0 > > On 10 Sep 2012, at 19:59, "Luke-Jr" <luke at dashjr.org> wrote: > > > > Most of the problem with block propagation lies in implementation, > > not > > protocol... Distributing missing transaction on an as-needed basis > > is a > > possible improvement at the protocol level, but there hasn't (AFAIK) > > been any > > research into whether the little benefit outweighs the cost yet. In > > any case, > > I don't see why 6 new messages are needed instead of simply adding a > > single > > new type to getinv?