path: root/5a/c80c148463b35eccad0c7695547150fb3a5cfc

Received: from sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.193]
	helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
	by sfs-ml-1.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
	(envelope-from <elombrozo@gmail.com>) id 1Z4MEy-0007Ov-7r
	for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
	Mon, 15 Jun 2015 04:43:20 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
	designates 209.85.192.169 as permitted sender)
	client-ip=209.85.192.169; envelope-from=elombrozo@gmail.com;
	helo=mail-pd0-f169.google.com; 
Received: from mail-pd0-f169.google.com ([209.85.192.169])
	by sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
	(Exim 4.76) id 1Z4MEx-0007eK-02
	for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
	Mon, 15 Jun 2015 04:43:20 +0000
Received: by pdbnf5 with SMTP id nf5so64147043pdb.2
	for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
	Sun, 14 Jun 2015 21:43:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 10.68.167.162 with SMTP id zp2mr44526902pbb.105.1434343393296; 
	Sun, 14 Jun 2015 21:43:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.102] (cpe-76-167-237-202.san.res.rr.com.
	[76.167.237.202]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id
	ni1sm10645382pdb.32.2015.06.14.21.43.10
	(version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128);
	Sun, 14 Jun 2015 21:43:11 -0700 (PDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2098\))
Content-Type: multipart/signed;
	boundary="Apple-Mail=_7C3316F3-5759-4409-905D-5D7B8C393E5F";
	protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512
X-Pgp-Agent: GPGMail 2.5b6
From: Eric Lombrozo <elombrozo@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <20150615041149.GA13286@muck>
Date: Sun, 14 Jun 2015 21:43:09 -0700
Message-Id: <B0D24D77-EAF8-4EB4-9E1B-0A3539C0AAA9@gmail.com>
References: <CALqxMTHrnSS9MGgKO-5+=fVhiOOvk12Recs11S0PcSUxQT1wdQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CANEZrP1nx9rNf1q-nubP77U8RMABuLtmEB_P7UpY2zyFf-Ns-w@mail.gmail.com>
	<CALqxMTENbj+E7ypJASrM1r04eW3kYe+afwy+Rt3i9ubeT-=2mA@mail.gmail.com>
	<674CED15-3F4C-4E24-BCA2-3C474CC01708@gmail.com>
	<20150615041149.GA13286@muck>
To: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.2098)
X-Spam-Score: -1.4 (-)
X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net.
	See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details.
	-1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for
	sender-domain
	0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider
	(elombrozo[at]gmail.com)
	-0.0 SPF_PASS               SPF: sender matches SPF record
	-0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from
	author's domain
	0.1 DKIM_SIGNED            Message has a DKIM or DK signature,
	not necessarily valid
	-0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature
	0.2 AWL AWL: Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address
X-Headers-End: 1Z4MEx-0007eK-02
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] comments on BIP 100
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: <bitcoin-development.lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
	<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_name=bitcoin-development>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
	<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2015 04:43:20 -0000


--Apple-Mail=_7C3316F3-5759-4409-905D-5D7B8C393E5F
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset=utf-8


> On Jun 14, 2015, at 9:11 PM, Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org> wrote:
>=20
> On Sun, Jun 14, 2015 at 05:53:05PM -0700, Eric Lombrozo wrote:
>> I think the whole complexity talk is missing the bigger issue.
>>=20
>> Sure, per block validation scales linearly (or =
quasilinearly=E2=80=A6there=E2=80=99s an O(log n) term in there =
somewhere but it=E2=80=99s probably dominated by linear factors at =
current levels=E2=80=A6asymptotic limits don=E2=80=99t always apply very =
well to finite systems). And there=E2=80=99s an O(n^2) bandwidth issue.
>>=20
>> The real issue, though, is validation cost. The n in O(n) here does =
not represent block size - it represents the size of the entire block =
chain for every new validator that must be synchronized! It means we =
have no way to construct short proofs (or at least arguments that are =
computationally *hard* to forge) without requiring the validator to =
maintain the complete system state. And currently, there is no mechanism =
for directly compensating validators.
>=20
> ...and can there be? The goal of validation after all is finding if a
> mistake has been made, and current production cryptography doesn't =
have
> any way to prove you have done that honestly. You need "moon math" =
like
> recursive SNARKS to do that, and it's unknown when they'll be =
available
> for production usage.
>=20

While things like zero-knowledge and homomorphic encryption would be =
awesome, they are not really needed to achieve the objective of an =
efficient proof that is hard to forge with at least a decently thought =
out security model (i.e. we can make information withholding far more =
difficult)=E2=80=A6and we can dramatically improve search times and =
local storage requirements by doing some of the things that you=E2=80=99ve=
 actually proposed, Peter, like shifting the responsibility of =
maintaining and constructing proofs over to transaction senders and =
committing proof hashes to the global state. At least the incentives =
would be far better aligned in such a scenario.

How do we deal with things like the discovery of an invalid proof a =
couple weeks after it=E2=80=99s already been committed? This is a tricky =
issue I=E2=80=99ve been giving a lot of thought to recently - but =
we=E2=80=99ll deal with this topic in a separate thread. :)

> When we say "compensating validators", if we're being honest with
> outselves what we really mean is the much more boring task of
> compensating servers who are giving us blockchain data. That has =
nothing
> to do with validation.

If we were to shift responsibility of constructing proofs over to =
transaction senders, today's =E2=80=9Cvalidators=E2=80=9D would indeed =
become nothing more than compensated servers. Clients would be able to =
query for proofs and verify them for themselves efficiently.

> A useful task would be to make an SPV archival node implementation =
that
> did no validation at all, while distributing the blockchain data =
linked
> to the longest chain. Such an implementation can and should serve SPV
> clients, as this is what their actual security model usually is given
> the lack of authentication of the identity of the server they're
> connecting too. Actually implementing this would be a simple matter of
> patching Bitcoin Core to turn off block validation.
>=20
>> A full validator that goes offline even for a short period of time =
takes a while to fully catch up to the rest of the network - and =
starting up a new validator from scratch will continue to be =
painful=E2=80=A6even for those of us who=E2=80=99ve turned this into =
routine by now, let alone new nontechnical users.
>=20
> Concretely, 20MB blocks lead to 20GB/week of blocks. On my 1MB/second
> down internet, turning on my node after a week away would take five
> hours; starting up a new node after two years of 20MB blocks would =
take
> 23 days - likely longer in practice.
>=20
> There's serious unsolved and undiscussed devops and development issues
> with this. For instance, after changes to the validation code, it's
> routine to resync/reindex Bitcoin Core to ensure starting up a new =
node
> actually works. Even now we haven't really come to grips with what
> consistent 1MB blocks looks like from this point of view after a few
> years of usage, let another order of magnitude longer sync times.
>=20

It=E2=80=99s a disaster. Even with 1MB blocks this is already the =
principal centralization pressure on Bitcoin.

>> Satoshi=E2=80=99s SPV is not a real solution - it=E2=80=99s a mere =
suggestion that wasn=E2=80=99t fully thought out at the time of the =
Bitcoin white paper. Besides lacking a good validation security model, =
practical implementations of it weaken privacy and complicate client =
implementations substantially=E2=80=A6and the worst part, it still =
doesn=E2=80=99t scale all that well. The validator still has to query =
every single block (even if filtered) back to the first transaction =
(which cannot be determined without doing a blockchain scan anyway).
>=20
> Note how with 20MB blocks it would take up to 1TB of IO per =
year-synced
> for a bloom-filter-using wallet to sync the blockchain. We already =
have
> a bloom IO DoS attack issue - what are the consequences of making that
> issue 20x worse? Nobody has analysed it yet.
>=20

We clearly need better data structures and algorithms. This talk of =
bigger blocks seems so petty by comparison, TBH.

> --
> 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
> 0000000000000000127ab1d576dc851f374424f1269c4700ccaba2c42d97e778


--Apple-Mail=_7C3316F3-5759-4409-905D-5D7B8C393E5F
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename=signature.asc
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature;
	name=signature.asc
Content-Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Comment: GPGTools - https://gpgtools.org
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=apbX
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--Apple-Mail=_7C3316F3-5759-4409-905D-5D7B8C393E5F--