Re: [bitcoin-dev] INV overhead and batched INVs to reduce full node traffic

2016-02-25 Thread Jonathan Toomim via bitcoin-dev
> On Feb 25, 2016, at 9:56 PM, Gregory Maxwell wrote: > The batching was > temporarily somewhat hobbled between 0.10 and 0.12 (especially when > you had any abusive frequently pinging peers attached), but is now > fully functional again and it now manages to batch many

[bitcoin-dev] INV overhead and batched INVs to reduce full node traffic

2016-02-25 Thread Jonathan Toomim via bitcoin-dev
The INV scheme used by Bitcoin is not very efficient at all. Once you take into account Bitcoin, TCP (including ACKs), IP, and ethernet overheads, each INV takes 193 bytes, according to wireshark. That's 127 bytes for the INV message and 66 bytes for the ACK. All of this is for 32 bytes of

Re: [bitcoin-dev] SIGHASH_NOINPUT in Segregated Witness

2016-02-25 Thread Joseph Poon via bitcoin-dev
Hi Bryan, On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 07:34:24PM -0600, Bryan Bishop wrote: > Well if you are bothering to draft up a BIP about that SIGHASH flag, > then perhaps also consider some other SIGHASH flag types as well while > you are at it? I'll take a look at those proposals when drafting the BIP. I

Re: [bitcoin-dev] SIGHASH_NOINPUT in Segregated Witness

2016-02-25 Thread Joseph Poon via bitcoin-dev
Hi Greg, On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 01:32:34AM +, Gregory Maxwell wrote: > I think to be successful we must be absolutely ruthless about changes > that go in there beyond the absolute minimum needed for the safe > deployment of segwit... so I think this should probably be constructed > as a new

Re: [bitcoin-dev] SIGHASH_NOINPUT in Segregated Witness

2016-02-25 Thread Anthony Towns via bitcoin-dev
On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 01:32:34AM +, Gregory Maxwell via bitcoin-dev wrote: > On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 1:07 AM, Joseph Poon via bitcoin-dev > wrote: > > I'm interested in input and in the level of receptiveness to this. If > > there is interest, I'll

Re: [bitcoin-dev] SIGHASH_NOINPUT in Segregated Witness

2016-02-25 Thread Gregory Maxwell via bitcoin-dev
On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 1:07 AM, Joseph Poon via bitcoin-dev wrote: > I'm interested in input and in the level of receptiveness to this. If > there is interest, I'll write up a draft BIP in the next couple days. The design of segwit was carefully

Re: [bitcoin-dev] SIGHASH_NOINPUT in Segregated Witness

2016-02-25 Thread Bryan Bishop via bitcoin-dev
On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 7:07 PM, Joseph Poon wrote: > This would be achieved using a SIGHASH flag, termed SIGHASH_NOINPUT. It > does not include as part of the signature, the outpoint being spent > (txid and index), nor the amount. It however, would include the spent > outpoint's script as part of

[bitcoin-dev] SIGHASH_NOINPUT in Segregated Witness

2016-02-25 Thread Joseph Poon via bitcoin-dev
As Segregated Witness will be merged soon as a solution for transaction malleability, especially with multi-party adversarial signatures, there may be an additional use case/functionality which is helpful for Lightning Network and possibly other Bitcoin use cases. This requires a new SIGHASH flag