Skip to content

LibraryStorage and networks2022Design paperCorpus record

Ancestor Package Relay

BIP 331. Gloria Zhao.

BIP 331, Ancestor Package Relay. Peer-to-peer protocol messages enabling nodes to request and relay the unconfirmed ancestor package of a given transaction, and to request and relay transactions in batches.

Status in the source: Draft. A reading of the public specification, not a copy of it and not a certification.

Ancestor Package Relay is worth reading for the rule it actually adds: Peer-to-peer protocol messages enabling nodes to request and relay the unconfirmed ancestor package of a given transaction, and to request and relay transactions in batches.

The five-minute read

The rule

Peer-to-peer protocol messages enabling nodes to request and relay the unconfirmed ancestor package of a given transaction, and to request and relay transactions in batches.

What was already failing

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 number does not mean

The source marks this draft. It is not a live consensus rule just because it has a number.

What a builder should be able to point at

An implementation either constrains no_package_info or it is a different design.

One action, walked through

  1. Open BIP 331 and read the status line before the examples.
  2. Write down the rule in one sentence. A fair version of that sentence is: Peer-to-peer protocol messages enabling nodes to request and relay the unconfirmed ancestor package of a given transaction, and to request and relay transactions in batches.
  3. Name the object that changes: no_package_info.
  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 the text is allowed to settle

Bitcoin Improvement Proposal 331 can settle the shape of Ancestor Package Relay. It cannot settle whether a later client, a later fork, or a later wallet still does this.

What this page will not pretend

There is no benchmark, no adoption number, and no claim that the mechanism is safe outside the assumptions written in the source.

What has to be true

  • You are implementing BIP 331 at the status the text itself states: Draft.
  • The object that has to change is no_package_info. 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 draft. It is not a live consensus rule just because it has a number. 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 Ancestor Package Relay 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: no_package_info?

Terms

BIP 331
The public text titled Ancestor Package Relay.
Draft
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

  • Peer-to-peer protocol messages enabling nodes to request and relay the unconfirmed ancestor package of a given transaction, and to request and relay transactions in batches.
  • Ancestor Package Relay includes two parts: a package information round and a transaction data download round.
  • The package information round is used to help a receiver learn what transactions are in a package and decide whether they want to download them.

How the mechanism is specified

  • Taken from the specification, the next constraint is: Ancestor Package Relay includes two parts: a package information round and a transaction data download round.
  • Locate no_package_info in BIP 331 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 draft. It is not a live consensus rule just because it has a number.

Why a venture studio still reads it

Use BIP 331 when a pitch says 'Ancestor Package Relay' without saying whether the rule is consensus, policy, or an interface. The number is the citation. The pitch is not.

This is Blockchain Lab's reading of a public design paper. It is not the paper, not a copy of it, and not an offer of tokens, equity, custody or a partnership. Later network behaviour can diverge from the text. Nothing here is investment, legal or technical advice.

Research status: Design paper. Last reviewed: 1 October 2026. This is a reading of a public paper, not investment, legal or security advice.