Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EA75BD46 for ; Tue, 8 Dec 2015 21:28:42 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-pa0-f43.google.com (mail-pa0-f43.google.com [209.85.220.43]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2FE4C16E for ; Tue, 8 Dec 2015 21:28:42 +0000 (UTC) Received: by pacdm15 with SMTP id dm15so17941937pac.3 for ; Tue, 08 Dec 2015 13:28:42 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=subject:references:to:from:message-id:disposition-notification-to :date:user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-type; bh=47u9jj+xUBYZEsQQCBt4Hc8Vj5Aw1ZcaS2V0OEEU5qg=; b=ofwqkTvR0eFZb3xDsA8rDuSAS8zh2rqC2rwS2S5C+ap8JH4gmio9nt6bbpdQzrChP+ fnP83PMbV7GXyOoH/Cs4kR0a7ecMxIu6qgzDjO5AjbBcwsDzA2Jktpl0UObzc2LTE07N 1meI/OKt6Exs9Ia6UQ32IayutFfbRTZMKccZfziN/CnBarhEq5pxL1YFIAdG+96/LLix LrWI7usvVFDr8UL4tmviFdjSBpibicN0hwWHHm0povkMaGA3BfWRCjysHFlnVckbs3Ju S2BRLWRB7iju3Sv0s9ZgxWFbkJTg6lE/ZKw4OoYndi6dssk+0yTUsKnEDg+mhE90TUxq 6fzQ== X-Received: by 10.66.227.129 with SMTP id sa1mr3068108pac.132.1449610121932; Tue, 08 Dec 2015 13:28:41 -0800 (PST) Received: from [10.45.134.131] (strateman.ninja. [66.175.221.254]) by smtp.googlemail.com with ESMTPSA id c79sm6698653pfj.71.2015.12.08.13.28.40 for (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Tue, 08 Dec 2015 13:28:41 -0800 (PST) References: <56674280.3010003@gmail.com> To: Bitcoin Dev From: Patrick Strateman Message-ID: <56674BA9.8090702@gmail.com> Date: Tue, 8 Dec 2015 13:29:13 -0800 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Icedove/38.4.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------030207000608050705060609" 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 X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 08 Dec 2015 21:31:08 +0000 Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Scaling by Partitioning 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, 08 Dec 2015 21:28:43 -0000 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------030207000608050705060609 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit If partition is selected from a random key (the hash of the output for example) then payment recipients would need to operate a full node on each of the chains. What's the point of partitioning if virtually everybody needs to operate each partition? The mining aspect has it's own set of issues, but I'm not going to get into those. On 12/08/2015 01:23 PM, Akiva Lichtner wrote: > It's true that miners would have to be prepared to work on any > partition. I don't see where the number affects defeating double > spending, what matters is the nonce in the block that keeps the next > successful miner random. > > I expect that the number of miners would be ten times larger as well, > so an attacker would have no advantage working on one partition. > > On Tue, Dec 8, 2015 at 3:50 PM, Patrick Strateman via bitcoin-dev > > wrote: > > Payment recipients would need to operate a daemon for each chain, > thus guaranteeing no scaling advantage. > > (There are other issues, but I believe that to be enough of a show > stopper not to continue). > > On 12/08/2015 08:27 AM, Akiva Lichtner via bitcoin-dev wrote: >> Hello, >> >> I am seeking some expert feedback on an idea for scaling Bitcoin. >> As a brief introduction: I work in the payment industry and I >> have twenty years' experience in development. I have some >> experience with process groups and ordering protocols too. I >> think I understand Satoshi's paper but I admit I have not read >> the source code. >> >> The idea is to run more than one simultaneous chain, each chain >> defeating double spending on only part of the coin. The coin >> would be partitioned by radix (or modulus, not sure what to call >> it.) For example in order to multiply throughput by a factor of >> ten you could run ten parallel chains, one would work on coin >> that ends in "0", one on coin that ends in "1", and so on up to "9". >> >> The number of chains could increase automatically over time based >> on the moving average of transaction volume. >> >> Blocks would have to contain the number of the partition they >> belong to, and miners would have to round-robin through >> partitions so that an attacker would not have an unfair advantage >> working on just one partition. >> >> I don't think there is much impact to miners, but clients would >> have to send more than one message in order to spend money. >> Client messages will need to enumerate coin using some sort of >> compression, to save space. This seems okay to me since often in >> computing client software does have to break things up in equal >> parts (e.g. memory pages, file system blocks,) and the client >> software could hide the details. >> >> Best wishes for continued success to the project. >> >> Regards, >> Akiva >> >> P.S. I found a funny anagram for SATOSHI NAKAMOTO: "NSA IS OOOK >> AT MATH" >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> bitcoin-dev mailing list >> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org >> >> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev > > > _______________________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev > > --------------030207000608050705060609 Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit If partition is selected from a random key (the hash of the output for example) then payment recipients would need to operate a full node on each of the chains.

What's the point of partitioning if virtually everybody needs to operate each partition?

The mining aspect has it's own set of issues, but I'm not going to get into those.

On 12/08/2015 01:23 PM, Akiva Lichtner wrote:
It's true that miners would have to be prepared to work on any partition. I don't see where the number affects defeating double spending, what matters is the nonce in the block that keeps the next successful miner random.

I expect that the number of miners would be ten times larger as well, so an attacker would have no advantage working on one partition.

On Tue, Dec 8, 2015 at 3:50 PM, Patrick Strateman via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
Payment recipients would need to operate a daemon for each chain, thus guaranteeing no scaling advantage.

(There are other issues, but I believe that to be enough of a show stopper not to continue).

On 12/08/2015 08:27 AM, Akiva Lichtner via bitcoin-dev wrote:
Hello,

I am seeking some expert feedback on an idea for scaling Bitcoin. As a brief introduction: I work in the payment industry and I have twenty years' experience in development. I have some experience with process groups and ordering protocols too. I think I understand Satoshi's paper but I admit I have not read the source code.

The idea is to run more than one simultaneous chain, each chain defeating double spending on only part of the coin. The coin would be partitioned by radix (or modulus, not sure what to call it.) For example in order to multiply throughput by a factor of ten you could run ten parallel chains, one would work on coin that ends in "0", one on coin that ends in "1", and so on up to "9".

The number of chains could increase automatically over time based on the moving average of transaction volume.

Blocks would have to contain the number of the partition they belong to, and miners would have to round-robin through partitions so that an attacker would not have an unfair advantage working on just one partition.

I don't think there is much impact to miners, but clients would have to send more than one message in order to spend money. Client messages will need to enumerate coin using some sort of compression, to save space. This seems okay to me since often in computing client software does have to break things up in equal parts (e.g. memory pages, file system blocks,) and the client software could hide the details.

Best wishes for continued success to the project.

Regards,
Akiva

P.S. I found a funny anagram for SATOSHI NAKAMOTO: "NSA IS OOOK AT MATH"



_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev


_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev



--------------030207000608050705060609--