Peter Tschipper [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2015-11-10 📝 Original message:On 10/11/2015 8:45 AM, ...

📅 Original date posted:2015-11-10
📝 Original message:On 10/11/2015 8:45 AM, Peter Tschipper wrote:
> On 10/11/2015 8:30 AM, Tier Nolan via bitcoin-dev wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 4:11 PM, Peter Tschipper
>> <peter.tschipper at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> There are better ways of sending new blocks, that's certainly
>> true but for sending historical blocks and seding transactions I
>> don't think so. This PR is really designed to save bandwidth and
>> not intended to be a huge performance improvement in terms of
>> time spent sending.
>>
>>
>> If the main point is for historical data, then sticking to just
>> blocks is the best plan.
>>
> at the beginning yes.
>> Since small blocks don't compress well, you could define a "cblocks"
>> message that handles multiple blocks (just concatenate the block
>> messages as payload before compression).
>>
> Small block are rare these days (but plenty of historical block), but
> still they get a 10% compression, not bad and I think worthwhile and
> the time it takes to compress small blocks is less that a millisecond
> so no loss there in time. But still you have a good point and
> something worthy of doing after getting compression to work. I think
> it's wise to keep it simple at first and build on the success later.
>> The sending peer could combine blocks so that each cblock is
>> compressing at least 10kB of block data (or whatever is optimal). It
>> is probably worth specifying a maximum size for network buffer
>> reasons (either 1MB or 1 block maximum).
> Good idea. Same answer as above.
>> Similarly, transactions could be combined together and compressed
>> "ctxs". The inv messages could be modified so that you can request
>> groups of 10-20 transactions. That would depend on how much of an
>> improvement compressed transactions would represent.
>>
> Good idea. Same answer as above.
>> More generally, you could define a message which is a compressed
>> message holder. That is probably to complex to be worth the effort
>> though.
> That's actually pretty easy to do and part of the plan. Sending a
> cmp_block rather than a block makes it all easier to implement. It's
> just a matter of doing pnode->pushmessage("cmp_block",
> compressed_block); and handling the "cmp_block" command string at the
> other end.
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 5:40 AM, Johnathan Corgan via
>>> bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
>>> <mailto:bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Mon, Nov 9, 2015 at 5:58 PM, gladoscc via bitcoin-dev
>>> <bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> I think 25% bandwidth savings is certainly considerable,
>>> especially for people running full nodes in countries
>>> like Australia where internet bandwidth is lower and
>>> there are data caps.
>>>
>>>
>>> ​ This reinforces the idea that such trade-off decisions
>>> should be be local and negotiated between peers, not a
>>> required feature of the network P2P.​
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Johnathan Corgan
>>> Corgan Labs - SDR Training and Development Services
>>> http://corganlabs.com
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> bitcoin-dev mailing list
>>> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
>>> <mailto:bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org>
>>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> bitcoin-dev mailing list
>>> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
>>> <mailto:bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org>
>>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> bitcoin-dev mailing list
>> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20151110/1aebeb1f/attachment-0001.html>;