rich1.0npub1lwrwp8dzn9x5nqc7d735e0nuwxh0nyz5ezkfpjzr332efdxw9asq4z8zjmhttps://nostr.ae/npub1lwrwp8dzn9x5nqc7d735e0nuwxh0nyz5ezkfpjzr332efdxw9asq4z8zjmnjumphttps://nostr.ae📅 Original date posted:2014-07-18 📝 Original message:That's true, but I think it can be balanced with the usefulness of knowing what messages a node has received. An invack would be sent if N invs have been received without any resulting getdata; since we're keeping track of peer inv order, one message can cover an arbitrarily large series of invs. On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 10:48 AM, Jeff Garzik <jgarzik at bitpay.com> wrote: > On a flood-fill network, you don't want to create a storm of "I > already have this" replies. > > On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 1:39 PM, Kaz Wesley <keziahw at gmail.com> wrote: >> Peers exchanging mempool priority policies is great; that accomplishes >> the flexibility in what txes to remember that I was going for with the >> forget-filters, but much more neatly, with less overhead and some side >> benefits. >> >> Here's what I'm picturing now: >> - exchange priority policies in peer introductions >> - assign unique sequential IDs in the order the transactions were >> inved (per peer) >> - receiving a getdata for a tx updates last-known-peer-received inv to >> all invs up to the one referenced >> - include ID-last-received, last-known-peer-received in sparse block >> - reference txes in sparse block by index in receiver's >> prioritiziation with peer's sent invs up to ID-last-received and >> sender's prior invs up to last-known-peer-received >> >> Possible new messages: >> - sparseblock >> - invack message a node can send at times when it's received a bunch >> of invs it already has, so it hasn't acked with a getdata in a while >> - gettx: getdata, but using new sequential ID to save 28 bytes per tx >> >> It seems important for ordering policies to be able to be specified in >> as much detail as possible. Parameters that should be available: >> - total inputs >> - total outputs >> - bytes >> - coin days destroyed >> - net UTXO size change >> - sigops >> - is data carrier >> - is output raw multisig >> - age in mempool >> - what else? >> This parameter set should be extensible to allow for unforeseen future factors. >> >> Ordering policies should allow arbitrary algebraic combinations of >> their parameters, as well as thresholds. Boolean combinations of >> sub-policies would also be desirable. This could be implemented with a >> tx-script-like stack-based language, in which each supported tx >> property is pushed onto the stack by a particular opcode, and >> +-*//min/max/boolean operators combine them to yield the sort key. >> >> Difficult parameters: >> * Coin-days-destroyed: changes, peers need agreement on when (if?) >> it's recalculated. Probably can just not recalculate, but peers still >> need agreement on "time seen" to get CDD. >> * Age in mempool: seems intractable in terms of time, but could be >> done easily in terms of "how many txes old is this sequential ID" >> >> One potential pitfall: this allows for an environment of completely >> heterogeneous mempool policies. I think that's a good thing, but we >> need to avoid a situation where only least-common-denominator >> transactions make it farther than a hop or two, and we don't want >> nodes to have a strong preference for connecting to like-minded peers >> since clustering reduces overall connectivity. It may be worthwhile to >> add a parallel mechanism for relay policies, to differentiate between >> what a node would keep in its mempool vs. what it wouldn't even relay >> and doesn't want to see at all. Relay policies could be specified just >> like prioritization policies, but with the final stack value evaluated >> in a boolean context. >> >> An interesting additional use of policy-scripts would be a >> standardized way for miners to include a policy script in a coinbase, >> allowing miners a mechanism to advertise things like their relative >> price of sigops vs bytes. Nodes may then choose to take this >> information into account in order to optimize their mempool policies >> for likelihood of consistency with future blocks. Since policy scripts >> provide only relative information on prices of different transaction >> properties rather than an absolute fee, this should not allow miners >> to "vote fees up", although care would need to be taken they wouldn't >> be able to drive up prices by claiming common transaction types are at >> the high end of the fee scale. >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> Want fast and easy access to all the code in your enterprise? Index and >> search up to 200,000 lines of code with a free copy of Black Duck >> Code Sight - the same software that powers the world's largest code >> search on Ohloh, the Black Duck Open Hub! Try it now. >> http://p.sf.net/sfu/bds >> _______________________________________________ >> Bitcoin-development mailing list >> Bitcoin-development at lists.sourceforge.net >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development > > > > -- > Jeff Garzik > Bitcoin core developer and open source evangelist > BitPay, Inc. https://bitpay.com/