[bitcoin-dev] Segregated Witness features wish list
jannes.faber at gmail.com
Sat Dec 12 00:43:11 UTC 2015
I was just wondering if it would make sense when we have SW to also make
Segregated IBLT? Segregating transactions from signatures and then tune the
parameters such that transactions have a slightly higher guarantee and save
a bit of space on the signatures side.
IBLT should of course, most of the time, convey all transactions _and_ all
signatures. However, in suboptimal situations, at least the receiving miner
will be more likely to have all the transactions, just possibly not all the
Assuming the miner was already planning on SPV mining anyway, at least now
she knows which transactions to remove from her mempool, taking away an
excuse to mine an empty block. And she can still verify most of the
signatures too (whatever % could be recovered from the IBLT).
I guess this does not improve the worst adversarial case for IBLT block
propagation, but it should improve the effectiveness in cases where the
"normal" IBLT would fail to deliver all transactions. Transactions without
signatures is better than no transactions at all, for a miner that's eager
to start on the next block, right? In "optimal" cases it would reduce the
size of the IBLT.
Sorry if this was already suggested.
On 10 December 2015 at 13:54, Tamas Blummer via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> Note that the unused space in coin base input script allows us to
> soft-fork an additional SW Merkle tree root into the design,
> therefore please make sure the new SW data structure also has a new slot
> for future extension.
> Tamas Blummer
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the bitcoin-dev