Possible better peer-to-peer protocols for Bitcoin?
As we know, bitcoin uses flooding in order to propagate blocks and transactions across all the nodes in the network. As it was launched in 2009, it's been almost 10 years since it's launch and I was wondering if it was launched today, would it be able to use a more efficient P2P protocol/algorithm then the flooding mechanism employed today? As flooding can cause multiple transactions, albeit inv transactions, to be sent to the same node multiple times which is information that the node does not need and is unnecessary. Are there any better state-of-the-art p2p protocols that could be a better fit for bitcoin today?
transactions network p2p
asked Dec 18 '18 at 14:40
HerofireHerofire
332
add a comment |
As we know, bitcoin uses flooding in order to propagate blocks and transactions across all the nodes in the network. As it was launched in 2009, it's been almost 10 years since it's launch and I was wondering if it was launched today, would it be able to use a more efficient P2P protocol/algorithm then the flooding mechanism employed today? As flooding can cause multiple transactions, albeit inv transactions, to be sent to the same node multiple times which is information that the node does not need and is unnecessary. Are there any better state-of-the-art p2p protocols that could be a better fit for bitcoin today?
transactions network p2p
asked Dec 18 '18 at 14:40
HerofireHerofire
332
add a comment |
As we know, bitcoin uses flooding in order to propagate blocks and transactions across all the nodes in the network. As it was launched in 2009, it's been almost 10 years since it's launch and I was wondering if it was launched today, would it be able to use a more efficient P2P protocol/algorithm then the flooding mechanism employed today? As flooding can cause multiple transactions, albeit inv transactions, to be sent to the same node multiple times which is information that the node does not need and is unnecessary. Are there any better state-of-the-art p2p protocols that could be a better fit for bitcoin today?
transactions network p2p
asked Dec 18 '18 at 14:40
HerofireHerofire
332
As we know, bitcoin uses flooding in order to propagate blocks and transactions across all the nodes in the network. As it was launched in 2009, it's been almost 10 years since it's launch and I was wondering if it was launched today, would it be able to use a more efficient P2P protocol/algorithm then the flooding mechanism employed today? As flooding can cause multiple transactions, albeit inv transactions, to be sent to the same node multiple times which is information that the node does not need and is unnecessary. Are there any better state-of-the-art p2p protocols that could be a better fit for bitcoin today?
transactions network p2p
transactions network p2p
asked Dec 18 '18 at 14:40
HerofireHerofire
332
asked Dec 18 '18 at 14:40
HerofireHerofire
332
asked Dec 18 '18 at 14:40
HerofireHerofire
332
asked Dec 18 '18 at 14:40
HerofireHerofire
332
asked Dec 18 '18 at 14:40
HerofireHerofire
332
332
add a comment |
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
The network used today isn't actually the same as the original design, which did not have an inventory system at all, every transaction and every block was sent to every peer indiscriminately. Compact Blocks was also added to remove redundancy in block transmission and reduce latency, as blocks predominantly contain transactions which have already been forwarded around the network previously. Fee based filtering was added to allow nodes to request that peers to not send transactions which will be rejected regardless, which saves bandwidth.
The P2P protocol, while not ideal, is relatively functional in its current state. It is an unusual set of requirements (flooding, censorship resistance, sybil avoidance) which doesn't have much simularity to many other systems.
answered Dec 18 '18 at 15:26
AnonymousAnonymous
8,58411028
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "308"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fbitcoin.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f83006%2fpossible-better-peer-to-peer-protocols-for-bitcoin%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
The network used today isn't actually the same as the original design, which did not have an inventory system at all, every transaction and every block was sent to every peer indiscriminately. Compact Blocks was also added to remove redundancy in block transmission and reduce latency, as blocks predominantly contain transactions which have already been forwarded around the network previously. Fee based filtering was added to allow nodes to request that peers to not send transactions which will be rejected regardless, which saves bandwidth.
The P2P protocol, while not ideal, is relatively functional in its current state. It is an unusual set of requirements (flooding, censorship resistance, sybil avoidance) which doesn't have much simularity to many other systems.
answered Dec 18 '18 at 15:26
AnonymousAnonymous
8,58411028
add a comment |
The network used today isn't actually the same as the original design, which did not have an inventory system at all, every transaction and every block was sent to every peer indiscriminately. Compact Blocks was also added to remove redundancy in block transmission and reduce latency, as blocks predominantly contain transactions which have already been forwarded around the network previously. Fee based filtering was added to allow nodes to request that peers to not send transactions which will be rejected regardless, which saves bandwidth.
The P2P protocol, while not ideal, is relatively functional in its current state. It is an unusual set of requirements (flooding, censorship resistance, sybil avoidance) which doesn't have much simularity to many other systems.
answered Dec 18 '18 at 15:26
AnonymousAnonymous
8,58411028
add a comment |
The network used today isn't actually the same as the original design, which did not have an inventory system at all, every transaction and every block was sent to every peer indiscriminately. Compact Blocks was also added to remove redundancy in block transmission and reduce latency, as blocks predominantly contain transactions which have already been forwarded around the network previously. Fee based filtering was added to allow nodes to request that peers to not send transactions which will be rejected regardless, which saves bandwidth.
The P2P protocol, while not ideal, is relatively functional in its current state. It is an unusual set of requirements (flooding, censorship resistance, sybil avoidance) which doesn't have much simularity to many other systems.
answered Dec 18 '18 at 15:26
AnonymousAnonymous
8,58411028
The network used today isn't actually the same as the original design, which did not have an inventory system at all, every transaction and every block was sent to every peer indiscriminately. Compact Blocks was also added to remove redundancy in block transmission and reduce latency, as blocks predominantly contain transactions which have already been forwarded around the network previously. Fee based filtering was added to allow nodes to request that peers to not send transactions which will be rejected regardless, which saves bandwidth.
The P2P protocol, while not ideal, is relatively functional in its current state. It is an unusual set of requirements (flooding, censorship resistance, sybil avoidance) which doesn't have much simularity to many other systems.
answered Dec 18 '18 at 15:26
AnonymousAnonymous
8,58411028
answered Dec 18 '18 at 15:26
AnonymousAnonymous
8,58411028
answered Dec 18 '18 at 15:26
AnonymousAnonymous
8,58411028
answered Dec 18 '18 at 15:26
AnonymousAnonymous
8,58411028
8,58411028
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Bitcoin Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fbitcoin.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f83006%2fpossible-better-peer-to-peer-protocols-for-bitcoin%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
