> the FEC still lets you fill in the missing transactions without knowing in > advance all that will be missing.
I don't see why we need to solve that problem, since the protocol already involves exchanging the information necessary to determine (with some false positives) what a peer is missing, and needs to continue doing so regardless of how blocks are transmitted. Set reconciliation does have the benefit of eliminating a subset of those false positives and offering a finer-grained mechanism for defining what a node can choose to forget from its mempool than remember-last-N, but if we implement it for block transmission I don't see why we wouldn't also use it to synchronize mempool txes, and if mempools are synchronized we don't actually need to do it as part of block-transmission to get those benefits. As far as I can tell, channel memory sparseblocks achieve most of the possible bandwidth savings, and when FEC-based mempool synchronization is implemented its benefits can be applied to the sparseblocks by resetting the channel memory to the mutual mempool state each time mempool differences are exchanged. Am I missing a benefit to doing FEC at block forwarding time that can't be realized by FEC-based mempool synchronization, implemented separately from channel-memory based index-coding? On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 2:51 PM, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxw...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 2:41 PM, Kaz Wesley <kezi...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> 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. > > "(e.g. from a reconciliation step first)" the list can be communicated > in the space roughly equal to the size of the difference in sets plus > coding the permutation from the permissible orderings. If you did > have some "simple approach" that guaranteed that some transactions > would be present, then you could code those with indexes... the FEC > still lets you fill in the missing transactions without knowing in > advance all that will be missing. (Also, the suggestion on the > network block coding page of using part of a cryptographic permutation > as the key means that for unknown transactions the transmission of the > new unknown keys is always goodput— doesn't add overhead) > > It's "only a bound" but you can pick whatever bound you want, > including— if you send data equal to the missing amount, then it'll be > always successful, but no bandwidth savings. Though if the transport > is unordered (e.g. UDP or non-blocking SCTP) even sending 100% of the > missing amount can save time by eliminating a round trip that might > otherwise be needed for a retransmission. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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. http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=153845071&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk _______________________________________________ Bitcoin-development mailing list Bitcoinemail@example.com https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development