BIP Draft: Minimum Viable TXIn Hash

BIP Draft: Minimum Viable TXIn Hash
2015-07-25 19:51 ` Luke Dashjr
  
From: Jeremy Rubin @ 2015-07-23 20:12 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: bitcoin-dev

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 397 bytes --]

Please see the following draft BIP which should decrease the amount of
bytes needed per transaction. This is very much a draft BIP, as the design
space for this type of improvement is large.

This BIP can be rolled out by a soft fork.

Improvements are around 12% for  standard "one in two out" txn, and even
more with more inputs hashes.

https://gist.github.com/JeremyRubin/e175662d2b8bf814a688

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 871 bytes --]

 permalink raw reply	[|nested]
2015-07-23 20:12 [bitcoin-dev] BIP Draft: Minimum Viable TXIn Hash Jeremy Rubin

  2015-07-25 22:05   ` Jorge Timón
  
From: Luke Dashjr @ 2015-07-25 19:51 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: bitcoin-dev, Jeremy Rubin

On Thursday, July 23, 2015 8:12:19 PM Jeremy Rubin via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> Please see the following draft BIP which should decrease the amount of
> bytes needed per transaction. This is very much a draft BIP, as the design
> space for this type of improvement is large.
> 
> This BIP can be rolled out by a soft fork.
> 
> Improvements are around 12% for  standard "one in two out" txn, and even
> more with more inputs hashes.
> 
> https://gist.github.com/JeremyRubin/e175662d2b8bf814a688

This looks like just a p2p protocol optimisation, which doesn't even need a 
softfork. You do need to document the suggested protocol changes more 
specifically, however.

Luke


 permalink raw reply	[|nested]
2015-07-25 19:51 ` Luke Dashjr

  
From: Jorge Timón @ 2015-07-25 22:05 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Luke Dashjr;  bitcoin-dev

From your draft:

"It could also more easily, ignoring the difficulties of a hard-fork
period, be rolled out as a hard fork to avoid hokey-pokey.[1]
[...]

[1] Because someone asked... The Txid Hokey Pokey: you put the tail
end in, you put the tail end out, you put the tail end in and you hash
it all about you do the hokey pokey and you solve the block difficulty
bound, that's what it's all about!"

Reading this, the first thing that comes to mind is "What the h#$% is
a hokey pokey?"

From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hokey_cokey : "It is well known in
English-speaking countries.".
That explains why I haven't heard about it in my whole life.
It may things clearer for people in these countries, but at least to
me, it just makes things more complicated: the analogy (that I still
don't understand after skimming the wikipedia article) doesn't allow
me to understand the actual explanation.

Can you please rewrite that with a more culturally-neutral analogy (or
just no analogy and just leave the explanation)?

On Sat, Jul 25, 2015 at 9:51 PM, Luke Dashjr via bitcoin-dev
<bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> On Thursday, July 23, 2015 8:12:19 PM Jeremy Rubin via bitcoin-dev wrote:
>
> This looks like just a p2p protocol optimisation, which doesn't even need a
> softfork. You do need to document the suggested protocol changes more
> specifically, however.

I think his goal is to make it a consensus change so that confirmed
transactions can also use less space in blocks.
But, yes, I don't think it gives you anything to enforce it as a
consensus rule (all you care about is the savings when transmitting
the transactions and blocks).
In fact, I'm not sure how would that work, would the "compact tx"
produce a different hash than the non-compact one?


 permalink raw reply	[|nested]