Compact Block Filters for Light Clients

The five-minute read

One action, walked through

1. Open BIP 158 and read the status line before the examples.
2. Write down the rule in one sentence. A fair version of that sentence is: A structure for compact filters on block data, for use in the BIP 157 light client protocol bip-0157.mediawiki .
3. Name the object that changes: Compact Block Filters for Light Clients.
4. Ask what an old client, an old contract, or an offline counterparty does. If the document is silent, the silence is part of the design.

The argument, unpacked

What has to be true

• You are implementing BIP 158 at the status the text itself states: Deployed.
• The object that has to change is Compact Block Filters for Light Clients. A neighbouring document with a similar name is not this one.
• Measurements of delay in one year do not travel with the specification.

What happened after the paper

The source marks this deployed. That is a statement about the text, not a promise that every wallet or node has shipped it. Later documents can narrow, replace, or ignore this one. Cite the number you mean.

What to check before you use the idea

• Which message does Compact Block Filters for Light Clients add, and which old peer must still be answered?
• What does a node do when the short form fails and the full object is required?
• Which names are normative: Compact Block Filters for Light Clients?

Terms

BIP 158

The public text titled Compact Block Filters for Light Clients.

Deployed

The document's own label for how finished the text is. It is not a market fact.

The problem the paper names

A node that cannot fetch, filter, or relay the data it is supposed to validate is not a peer of the network the paper describes.

What the design proposes

• A structure for compact filters on block data, for use in the BIP 157 light client protocol bip-0157.mediawiki .
• The filter construction proposed is an alternative to Bloom filters, as used in BIP 37, that minimizes filter size by using Golomb-Rice coding for compression.
• This document specifies one initial filter type based on this construction that enables basic wallets and applications with more advanced smart contracts.

How the mechanism is specified

• Taken from the specification, the next constraint is: The filter construction proposed is an alternative to Bloom filters, as used in BIP 37, that minimizes filter size by using Golomb-Rice coding for compression.
• Locate Compact Block Filters for Light Clients in BIP 158 and apply it to one transaction or call.
• Then check the failure the class of rule always has: a node that did not upgrade, a reverted call, a replayed signature, or a peer that does not speak the message.

What this page does not treat as proven

• A peer protocol is not a consensus rule. A peer can disconnect. A block is still valid or not on its own.
• Measurements of delay in one year do not travel with the specification.
• The source marks this deployed. That is a statement about the text, not a promise that every wallet or node has shipped it.

Why a venture studio still reads it

Use BIP 158 when a pitch says 'Compact Block Filters for Light Clients' without saying whether the rule is consensus, policy, or an interface. The number is the citation. The pitch is not.