Re: [Bitcoin-development] BIP draft - Auxiliary Header Format
I was going to look into creating reference code for this. The first BIP could be reasonably easy, since it just needs to check for the presence of the 2 special transactions. That would mean that it doesn't actually create version 3 blocks at all. Ideally, I would make it easy for miners to mine version 3 blocks. I could add a new field to the getblocktemplate that has the 2 transactions ready to go. What do pools actually use for generating blocks. I assume it's custom code but that they use (near) standard software for the memory pool? On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 11:39 PM, Tier Nolan tier.no...@gmail.com wrote: I have added the network BIP too. It only has the aheaders message and the extra field for getheaders. https://github.com/TierNolan/bips/blob/aux_header/bip-aux-header-network.mediawiki The transaction definitions are still at: https://github.com/TierNolan/bips/blob/aux_header/bip-aux-header.mediawiki On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 9:21 PM, Tier Nolan tier.no...@gmail.com wrote: I updated the BIP to cover only the specification of the transactions that need to be added. I will create a network BIP tomorrow. On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 11:42 AM, Tier Nolan tier.no...@gmail.com wrote: The aheaders message is required to make use of the data by SPV clients. This could be in a separate BIP though. I wanted to show that the merkle path to the aux-header transaction could be efficiently encoded, but a reference to the other BIP would be sufficient. For the other messages, the problem is that the hash of the aux header is part of the block, but the aux header itself is not. That means that the aux header has to be sent for validation of the block. I will change it so that the entire aux-header is encoded in the block. I think encoding the hash in the final transaction and the full aux-header in the 2nd last one is the best way to do it. This has the added advantage of reducing the changes to block data storage, since the aux-header doesn't have to be stored separately. On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 12:52 AM, Gregory Maxwell gmaxw...@gmail.com wrote: Some initial comments... Tying in the protocol changes is really confusing and the fact that they seem to be required out the gates would seemingly make this much harder to deploy. Is there a need to do that? Why can't the p2p part be entirely separate from the comitted data? On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 12:39 AM, Tier Nolan tier.no...@gmail.com wrote: I made some changes to the draft. The merkleblock now has the auxiliary header information too. There is a tradeoff between overhead and delayed transactions. Is 12.5% transactions being delayed to the next block unacceptable? Would adding padding transactions be an improvement? Creating the seed transactions is an implementation headache. Each node needs to have control over an UTXO to create the final transaction in the block that has the digest of the auxiliary header. This means that it is not possible to simply start a node and have it mine. It has to somehow be given the private key. If two nodes were given the same key by accident, then one could end up blocking the other. On one end of the scale is adding a transaction with a few thousand outputs into the block chain. The signatures for locktime restricted transactions that spend those outputs could be hard-coded into the software. This is the easiest to implement, but would mean a large table of signatures. The person who generates the signature list would have to be trusted not to spend the outputs early. The other end of the scale means that mining nodes need to include a wallets to manage their UTXO entry. Miners can split a zero value output into lots of outputs, if they wish. A middle ground would be for nodes to be able to detect the special transactions and use them. A server could send out timelocked transactions that pay to a particular address but the transaction would be timelocked. The private key for the output would be known. However, miners who mine version 2 blocks wouldn't be able to spend them early. On Sat, Nov 8, 2014 at 11:45 PM, Tier Nolan tier.no...@gmail.com wrote: I created a draft BIP detailing a way to add auxiliary headers to Bitcoin in a bandwidth efficient way. The overhead per auxiliary header is only around 104 bytes per header. This is much smaller than would be required by embedding the hash of the header in the coinbase of the block. It is a soft fork and it uses the last transaction in the block to store the hash of the auxiliary header. It makes use of the fact that the last transaction in the block has a much less complex Merkle branch than the other transactions. https://github.com/TierNolan/bips/blob/aux_header/bip-aux-header.mediawiki --
Re: [Bitcoin-development] BIP draft - Auxiliary Header Format
The aheaders message is required to make use of the data by SPV clients. This could be in a separate BIP though. I wanted to show that the merkle path to the aux-header transaction could be efficiently encoded, but a reference to the other BIP would be sufficient. For the other messages, the problem is that the hash of the aux header is part of the block, but the aux header itself is not. That means that the aux header has to be sent for validation of the block. I will change it so that the entire aux-header is encoded in the block. I think encoding the hash in the final transaction and the full aux-header in the 2nd last one is the best way to do it. This has the added advantage of reducing the changes to block data storage, since the aux-header doesn't have to be stored separately. On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 12:52 AM, Gregory Maxwell gmaxw...@gmail.com wrote: Some initial comments... Tying in the protocol changes is really confusing and the fact that they seem to be required out the gates would seemingly make this much harder to deploy. Is there a need to do that? Why can't the p2p part be entirely separate from the comitted data? On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 12:39 AM, Tier Nolan tier.no...@gmail.com wrote: I made some changes to the draft. The merkleblock now has the auxiliary header information too. There is a tradeoff between overhead and delayed transactions. Is 12.5% transactions being delayed to the next block unacceptable? Would adding padding transactions be an improvement? Creating the seed transactions is an implementation headache. Each node needs to have control over an UTXO to create the final transaction in the block that has the digest of the auxiliary header. This means that it is not possible to simply start a node and have it mine. It has to somehow be given the private key. If two nodes were given the same key by accident, then one could end up blocking the other. On one end of the scale is adding a transaction with a few thousand outputs into the block chain. The signatures for locktime restricted transactions that spend those outputs could be hard-coded into the software. This is the easiest to implement, but would mean a large table of signatures. The person who generates the signature list would have to be trusted not to spend the outputs early. The other end of the scale means that mining nodes need to include a wallets to manage their UTXO entry. Miners can split a zero value output into lots of outputs, if they wish. A middle ground would be for nodes to be able to detect the special transactions and use them. A server could send out timelocked transactions that pay to a particular address but the transaction would be timelocked. The private key for the output would be known. However, miners who mine version 2 blocks wouldn't be able to spend them early. On Sat, Nov 8, 2014 at 11:45 PM, Tier Nolan tier.no...@gmail.com wrote: I created a draft BIP detailing a way to add auxiliary headers to Bitcoin in a bandwidth efficient way. The overhead per auxiliary header is only around 104 bytes per header. This is much smaller than would be required by embedding the hash of the header in the coinbase of the block. It is a soft fork and it uses the last transaction in the block to store the hash of the auxiliary header. It makes use of the fact that the last transaction in the block has a much less complex Merkle branch than the other transactions. https://github.com/TierNolan/bips/blob/aux_header/bip-aux-header.mediawiki -- ___ Bitcoin-development mailing list Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development -- ___ Bitcoin-development mailing list Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
Re: [Bitcoin-development] BIP draft - Auxiliary Header Format
I updated the BIP to cover only the specification of the transactions that need to be added. I will create a network BIP tomorrow. On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 11:42 AM, Tier Nolan tier.no...@gmail.com wrote: The aheaders message is required to make use of the data by SPV clients. This could be in a separate BIP though. I wanted to show that the merkle path to the aux-header transaction could be efficiently encoded, but a reference to the other BIP would be sufficient. For the other messages, the problem is that the hash of the aux header is part of the block, but the aux header itself is not. That means that the aux header has to be sent for validation of the block. I will change it so that the entire aux-header is encoded in the block. I think encoding the hash in the final transaction and the full aux-header in the 2nd last one is the best way to do it. This has the added advantage of reducing the changes to block data storage, since the aux-header doesn't have to be stored separately. On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 12:52 AM, Gregory Maxwell gmaxw...@gmail.com wrote: Some initial comments... Tying in the protocol changes is really confusing and the fact that they seem to be required out the gates would seemingly make this much harder to deploy. Is there a need to do that? Why can't the p2p part be entirely separate from the comitted data? On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 12:39 AM, Tier Nolan tier.no...@gmail.com wrote: I made some changes to the draft. The merkleblock now has the auxiliary header information too. There is a tradeoff between overhead and delayed transactions. Is 12.5% transactions being delayed to the next block unacceptable? Would adding padding transactions be an improvement? Creating the seed transactions is an implementation headache. Each node needs to have control over an UTXO to create the final transaction in the block that has the digest of the auxiliary header. This means that it is not possible to simply start a node and have it mine. It has to somehow be given the private key. If two nodes were given the same key by accident, then one could end up blocking the other. On one end of the scale is adding a transaction with a few thousand outputs into the block chain. The signatures for locktime restricted transactions that spend those outputs could be hard-coded into the software. This is the easiest to implement, but would mean a large table of signatures. The person who generates the signature list would have to be trusted not to spend the outputs early. The other end of the scale means that mining nodes need to include a wallets to manage their UTXO entry. Miners can split a zero value output into lots of outputs, if they wish. A middle ground would be for nodes to be able to detect the special transactions and use them. A server could send out timelocked transactions that pay to a particular address but the transaction would be timelocked. The private key for the output would be known. However, miners who mine version 2 blocks wouldn't be able to spend them early. On Sat, Nov 8, 2014 at 11:45 PM, Tier Nolan tier.no...@gmail.com wrote: I created a draft BIP detailing a way to add auxiliary headers to Bitcoin in a bandwidth efficient way. The overhead per auxiliary header is only around 104 bytes per header. This is much smaller than would be required by embedding the hash of the header in the coinbase of the block. It is a soft fork and it uses the last transaction in the block to store the hash of the auxiliary header. It makes use of the fact that the last transaction in the block has a much less complex Merkle branch than the other transactions. https://github.com/TierNolan/bips/blob/aux_header/bip-aux-header.mediawiki -- ___ Bitcoin-development mailing list Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development -- Comprehensive Server Monitoring with Site24x7. Monitor 10 servers for $9/Month. Get alerted through email, SMS, voice calls or mobile push notifications. Take corrective actions from your mobile device. http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=154624111iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk___ Bitcoin-development mailing list Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
Re: [Bitcoin-development] BIP draft - Auxiliary Header Format
I made some changes to the draft. The merkleblock now has the auxiliary header information too. There is a tradeoff between overhead and delayed transactions. Is 12.5% transactions being delayed to the next block unacceptable? Would adding padding transactions be an improvement? Creating the seed transactions is an implementation headache. Each node needs to have control over an UTXO to create the final transaction in the block that has the digest of the auxiliary header. This means that it is not possible to simply start a node and have it mine. It has to somehow be given the private key. If two nodes were given the same key by accident, then one could end up blocking the other. On one end of the scale is adding a transaction with a few thousand outputs into the block chain. The signatures for locktime restricted transactions that spend those outputs could be hard-coded into the software. This is the easiest to implement, but would mean a large table of signatures. The person who generates the signature list would have to be trusted not to spend the outputs early. The other end of the scale means that mining nodes need to include a wallets to manage their UTXO entry. Miners can split a zero value output into lots of outputs, if they wish. A middle ground would be for nodes to be able to detect the special transactions and use them. A server could send out timelocked transactions that pay to a particular address but the transaction would be timelocked. The private key for the output would be known. However, miners who mine version 2 blocks wouldn't be able to spend them early. On Sat, Nov 8, 2014 at 11:45 PM, Tier Nolan tier.no...@gmail.com wrote: I created a draft BIP detailing a way to add auxiliary headers to Bitcoin in a bandwidth efficient way. The overhead per auxiliary header is only around 104 bytes per header. This is much smaller than would be required by embedding the hash of the header in the coinbase of the block. It is a soft fork and it uses the last transaction in the block to store the hash of the auxiliary header. It makes use of the fact that the last transaction in the block has a much less complex Merkle branch than the other transactions. https://github.com/TierNolan/bips/blob/aux_header/bip-aux-header.mediawiki -- ___ Bitcoin-development mailing list Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
Re: [Bitcoin-development] BIP draft - Auxiliary Header Format
Some initial comments... Tying in the protocol changes is really confusing and the fact that they seem to be required out the gates would seemingly make this much harder to deploy. Is there a need to do that? Why can't the p2p part be entirely separate from the comitted data? On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 12:39 AM, Tier Nolan tier.no...@gmail.com wrote: I made some changes to the draft. The merkleblock now has the auxiliary header information too. There is a tradeoff between overhead and delayed transactions. Is 12.5% transactions being delayed to the next block unacceptable? Would adding padding transactions be an improvement? Creating the seed transactions is an implementation headache. Each node needs to have control over an UTXO to create the final transaction in the block that has the digest of the auxiliary header. This means that it is not possible to simply start a node and have it mine. It has to somehow be given the private key. If two nodes were given the same key by accident, then one could end up blocking the other. On one end of the scale is adding a transaction with a few thousand outputs into the block chain. The signatures for locktime restricted transactions that spend those outputs could be hard-coded into the software. This is the easiest to implement, but would mean a large table of signatures. The person who generates the signature list would have to be trusted not to spend the outputs early. The other end of the scale means that mining nodes need to include a wallets to manage their UTXO entry. Miners can split a zero value output into lots of outputs, if they wish. A middle ground would be for nodes to be able to detect the special transactions and use them. A server could send out timelocked transactions that pay to a particular address but the transaction would be timelocked. The private key for the output would be known. However, miners who mine version 2 blocks wouldn't be able to spend them early. On Sat, Nov 8, 2014 at 11:45 PM, Tier Nolan tier.no...@gmail.com wrote: I created a draft BIP detailing a way to add auxiliary headers to Bitcoin in a bandwidth efficient way. The overhead per auxiliary header is only around 104 bytes per header. This is much smaller than would be required by embedding the hash of the header in the coinbase of the block. It is a soft fork and it uses the last transaction in the block to store the hash of the auxiliary header. It makes use of the fact that the last transaction in the block has a much less complex Merkle branch than the other transactions. https://github.com/TierNolan/bips/blob/aux_header/bip-aux-header.mediawiki -- ___ Bitcoin-development mailing list Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development -- ___ Bitcoin-development mailing list Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
[Bitcoin-development] BIP draft - Auxiliary Header Format
I created a draft BIP detailing a way to add auxiliary headers to Bitcoin in a bandwidth efficient way. The overhead per auxiliary header is only around 104 bytes per header. This is much smaller than would be required by embedding the hash of the header in the coinbase of the block. It is a soft fork and it uses the last transaction in the block to store the hash of the auxiliary header. It makes use of the fact that the last transaction in the block has a much less complex Merkle branch than the other transactions. https://github.com/TierNolan/bips/blob/aux_header/bip-aux-header.mediawiki -- ___ Bitcoin-development mailing list Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
