Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6CA7589F for ; Tue, 4 Aug 2015 13:12:39 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-la0-f47.google.com (mail-la0-f47.google.com [209.85.215.47]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 567ED195 for ; Tue, 4 Aug 2015 13:12:38 +0000 (UTC) Received: by labgo9 with SMTP id go9so6897145lab.3 for ; Tue, 04 Aug 2015 06:12:36 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=8S4tO5pIWzH90rw2XSssKIB6ZkZty9J3tK7Dym5HJn4=; b=kCYX+3ie9xWIFt41sQT+SPAqPgVphJIo/zkNIUC4+NuDN+/HPqqY/qJDdLqK9QXzKd m7Mjq3Jv3jstfLgRwV9CiJocSPwIY5p9+IUffnIRk3VZrpu+0QtdBqeL50RRY+JlUr/w jzWyGGwUtx2gk1B7pDMndAVZFIE2ckbfI98xgWFIG5822A60RMo0xpStrGEemQMlXuCK dMrbNv+tuKJsYsP8wuNL3HXdPkOxtBKS4K0tB3EQn2XDuM/NrI7rpVshJSMLKOylF7jm wP6KFJaTxI7s55p3d7ZircdkJhqz0eNGHg/IGWGFOCGn3/FvbfQGONrac9/0ncfL0N+/ P6aA== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.112.139.131 with SMTP id qy3mr3415321lbb.4.1438693956380; Tue, 04 Aug 2015 06:12:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.25.143.195 with HTTP; Tue, 4 Aug 2015 06:12:36 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2015 09:12:36 -0400 Message-ID: From: Gavin Andresen To: Pieter Wuille Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c33ffa35ed61051c7c0a6d X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org Cc: Bitcoin Dev Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Block size following technological growth X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Development Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 04 Aug 2015 13:12:39 -0000 --001a11c33ffa35ed61051c7c0a6d Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On Tue, Aug 4, 2015 at 7:27 AM, Pieter Wuille via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > I would say that things already demonstrately got terrible. The mining > landscape is very centralized, with apparently a majority depending on > agreements to trust each other's announced blocks without validation. > And that is a problem... why? As far as I can tell, nobody besides miners running old and/or buggy software lost money due to outsourced mining validation (please correct me if I'm wrong-- I'm looking forward to Greg's post-mortem). The operators of bitcoin.org seem to have freaked out and pushed the panic button (with dire warnings of not trusting transactions until 20 confirmations), but theymos was well known for using an old, patched version of Core for blockexplorer.com so maybe that's not surprising. As Bitcoin grows, pieces of the ecosystem will specialize. Satoshi's original code did everything: hashing, block assembly, wallet, consensus, network. That is changing, and that is OK. I understand there are parts of the ecosystem you'd rather not see specialized, like transaction selection / block assembly or validation. I see it as a natural maturation. The only danger I see is if some unnatural barriers to competition spring up. > Full node count is at its historically lowest value in years, and outsourcing of full validation keeps growing. Both side effects of increasing specialization, in my opinion. Many companies quite reasonably would rather hire somebody who specializes in running nodes, keeping keys secure, etc rather than develop that expertise themselves. Again, not a problem UNLESS some unnatural barriers to competition spring up. > I believe that if the above would have happened overnight, people would > have cried wolf. But somehow it happened slow enough, and "things kept > working". > > I don't think that this is a good criterion. Bitcoin can "work" with > gigabyte blocks today, if everyone uses the same few blockchain validation > services, the same few online wallets, and mining is done by a cartel that > only allows joining after signing a contract so they can sue you if you > create an invalid block. Do you think people will then agree that "things > got demonstratebly worse"? > > Don't turn Bitcoin into something uninteresting, please. > > Why is what you, personally, find interesting relevant? I understand you want to build an extremely decentralized system, where everybody participating trusts nothing except the genesis block hash. I think it is more interesting to build a system that works for hundreds of millions of people, with no central point of control and the opportunity for ANYBODY to participate at any level. Permission-less innovation is what I find interesting. And I think the current "demonstrably terrible" Bitcoin system is still INCREDIBLY interesting. -- -- Gavin Andresen --001a11c33ffa35ed61051c7c0a6d Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On T= ue, Aug 4, 2015 at 7:27 AM, Pieter Wuille via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:

I would say that things already demo= nstrately got terrible. The mining landscape is very centralized, with appa= rently a majority depending on agreements to trust each other's announc= ed blocks without validation.

And that is a problem...= why?

As far as I can tell, nobody besides miners = running old and/or buggy software lost money due to outsourced mining valid= ation (please correct me if I'm wrong-- I'm looking forward to Greg= 's post-mortem). The operators of bitcoi= n.org seem to have freaked out and pushed the panic button (with dire w= arnings of not trusting transactions until 20 confirmations), but theymos w= as well known for using an old, patched version of Core for blockexplorer.com so maybe that's not surpris= ing.

As Bitcoin grows, pieces of the ecosyste= m will specialize. Satoshi's original code did everything: hashing, blo= ck assembly, wallet, consensus, network. That is changing, and that is OK.<= /div>

I understand there are parts of the ecosyste= m you'd rather not see specialized, like transaction selection / block = assembly or validation. I see it as a natural maturation. The only danger I= see is if some unnatural barriers to competition spring up.

=
> Full node count is at its historically lowest value in year= s, and outsourcing of full validation keeps growing.

Both side effects of increasing specialization, in my opinion. Many comp= anies quite reasonably would rather hire somebody who specializes in runnin= g nodes, keeping keys secure, etc rather than develop that expertise themse= lves.

Again, not a problem UNLESS some unnatural b= arriers to competition spring up.
=C2=A0

I believe that if the above would have happened overnight, p= eople would have cried wolf. But somehow it happened slow enough, and "= ;things kept working".

I don't think that this is a good criterion. Bitcoin can= "work" with gigabyte blocks today, if everyone uses the same few= blockchain validation services, the same few online wallets, and mining is= done by a cartel that only allows joining after signing a contract so they= can sue you if you create an invalid block. Do you think people will then = agree that "things got demonstratebly worse"?

Don't turn Bitcoin into something uninteresting, please.=

Why is what you, person= ally, find interesting relevant?

=
I understand you want to build an extremely dece= ntralized system, where everybody participating trusts nothing except the g= enesis block hash.

I think it is more interesting to build a system that works fo= r hundreds of millions of people, with no central point of control and the = opportunity for ANYBODY to participate at any level. Permission-less innova= tion is what I find interesting.

And I think the current "demon= strably terrible" Bitcoin system is still INCREDIBLY interesting.

--
--
Gav= in Andresen
--001a11c33ffa35ed61051c7c0a6d--