Arne Brutschy [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2015-05-08 📝 Original message:Hello, At DevCore London, ...
📅 Original date posted:2015-05-08
📝 Original message:Hello,
At DevCore London, Gavin mentioned the idea that we could get rid of
sending full blocks. Instead, newly minted blocks would only be
distributed as block headers plus all hashes of the transactions
included in the block. The assumption would be that nodes have already
the majority of these transactions in their mempool.
The advantages are clear: it's more efficient, as we would send
transactions only once over the network, and it's fast as the resulting
blocks would be small. Moreover, we would get rid of the blocksize limit
for a long time.
Unfortunately, I am too ignorant of bitcoin core's internals to judge
the changes required to make this happen. (I guess we'd require a new
block format and a way to bulk-request missing transactions.)
However, I'm curious to hear what others with a better grasp of bitcoin
core's internals have to say about it.
Regards,
Arne
📝 Original message:Hello,
At DevCore London, Gavin mentioned the idea that we could get rid of
sending full blocks. Instead, newly minted blocks would only be
distributed as block headers plus all hashes of the transactions
included in the block. The assumption would be that nodes have already
the majority of these transactions in their mempool.
The advantages are clear: it's more efficient, as we would send
transactions only once over the network, and it's fast as the resulting
blocks would be small. Moreover, we would get rid of the blocksize limit
for a long time.
Unfortunately, I am too ignorant of bitcoin core's internals to judge
the changes required to make this happen. (I guess we'd require a new
block format and a way to bulk-request missing transactions.)
However, I'm curious to hear what others with a better grasp of bitcoin
core's internals have to say about it.
Regards,
Arne