> the need to have transmitted the transaction list [..] first

32 bits per transaction is at least double the communication overhead
of the simple approach, and only offers a bound on the probability of
needing a round trip.

On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 2:29 PM, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 1:47 PM, Kaz Wesley <kezi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> trip to request the missing tx; if we could somehow get the "What's
>> the Difference" approach to effectively operate on full transactions
>> instead
> I explain how to do this on the network block coding page.
> Given that you know the sizes and orders of the transactions (e.g.
> from a reconciliation step first), the sender sends non-syndromic
> forward error correcting code data somewhat larger than their estimate
> of how much data the user is missing.  Then you drop the data you know
> into place and then recover the missing blocks using the fec.
> There is no overhead in this approach except for FEC blocks that are
> incompletely missing (and so must be completely discarded), and the
> need to have the transmitted the transaction list and sizes first.
> (note, that just more bandwidth, not an additional round trip).

Infragistics Professional
Build stunning WinForms apps today!
Reboot your WinForms applications with our WinForms controls. 
Build a bridge from your legacy apps to the future.
Bitcoin-development mailing list

Reply via email to