rich1.0npub1dtr22xd42nv07un2xq0rmtkqkjylgsmexau0anxxafa9xmmn2ncshu7wrshttps://nostr.ae/npub1dtr22xd42nv07un2xq0rmtkqkjylgsmexau0anxxafa9xmmn2ncshu7wrsnjumphttps://nostr.ae📅 Original date posted:2012-09-10 📝 Original message:On Monday, September 10, 2012 3:07:52 PM Matthew Mitchell 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 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?