Any chance you could add a graph of input-scripts (instead of input outpoints)?
On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 7:38 AM, Jim Posen via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > So I checked filter sizes (as a proportion of block size) for each of the > sub-filters. The graph is attached. > > As interpretation, the first ~120,000 blocks are so small that the > Golomb-Rice coding can't compress the filters that well, which is why the > filter sizes are so high proportional to the block size. Except for the > input filter, because the coinbase input is skipped, so many of them have 0 > elements. But after block 120,000 or so, the filter compression converges > pretty quickly to near the optimal value. The encouraging thing here is that > if you look at the ratio of the combined size of the separated filters vs > the size of a filter containing all of them (currently known as the basic > filter), they are pretty much the same size. The mean of the ratio between > them after block 150,000 is 99.4%. So basically, not much compression > efficiently is lost by separating the basic filter into sub-filters. > > On Tue, May 22, 2018 at 5:42 PM, Jim Posen <jim.po...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> My suggestion was to advertise a bitfield for each filter type the node >>> serves, >>> where the bitfield indicates what elements are part of the filters. This >>> essentially >>> removes the notion of decided filter types and instead leaves the >>> decision to >>> full-nodes. >> >> >> I think it makes more sense to construct entirely separate filters for the >> different types of elements and allow clients to download only the ones they >> care about. If there are enough elements per filter, the compression ratio >> shouldn't be much worse by splitting them up. This prevents the exponential >> blowup in the number of filters that you mention, Johan, and it works nicely >> with service bits for advertising different filter types independently. >> >> So if we created three separate filter types, one for output scripts, one >> for input outpoints, and one for TXIDs, each signaled with a separate >> service bit, are people good with that? Or do you think there shouldn't be a >> TXID filter at all, Matt? I didn't include the option of a prev output >> script filter or rolling that into the block output script filter because it >> changes the security model (cannot be proven to be correct/incorrect >> succinctly). >> >> Then there's the question of whether to separate or combine the headers. >> I'd lean towards keeping them separate because it's simpler that way. > > > > _______________________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev > _______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
