-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 407
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Compressed block headers & merkle proofs over low bandwidth communications #254
Comments
Have you considered using bitcoind's |
Why not just sign the replies and verify signatures? Then the whole merkle proof could be dropped. By "working on top of an Electrum Protocol Server." you mean a completely separate proxy? I like that you actually tried to measure the sizes. Some other ideas to explore:
|
Thank you, that is a good suggestion. And yes we have certainly considered the merkle block structure, however I think multiple transactions in one block should be a future optimisation -- I will add it to "future work" section of the proposal spec. For now I would like to focus on improving the existing |
Sorry, I am not sure I follow what you mean here @Kixunil, we are trying to update this in the most trust-minimised way possible, which I think is achieved via a merkle proof.
Something like that -- I'm thinking, if for example all the current electrum server implementations don't want to switch to a new RPC wire protocol (e.g. protobuf), then this service could run on top of an Electrum Server, and reflect (deserialise) protobuf requests into Electrum-compatible JSON format, and then serialise the responses. This means we would not break compatibility with all existing wallets and services that are using the JSON format (and might not be as bandwidth-constrained as us).
Thanks for the ideas! I have seen the Bitcoin Core devs proposing Cap'n'Proto (for some multiprocess stuff: bitcoin/bitcoin#10102) so will investigate that and flat buffers. I am hoping to increase the resource and bandwidth tests in the very near future. |
I hope you don't mind me opening this as an issue here, this is a cross-post of: kyuupichan/electrumx#1007
I have written up an Electrum Protocol proposal which seeks to improve both:
block_height
requirement)The proposal can be found here: https://github.com/willcl-ark/electrum-low-bandwidth/blob/master/spec.adoc
As implementers of an Electrum Server yourselves, I would value your feedback and appreciate any comments on the proposal you may have.
Thanks!
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: