1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
|
Return-Path: <pete@petertodd.org>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3FD4DAB2
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sat, 27 Jun 2015 18:47:58 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from outmail149078.authsmtp.net (outmail149078.authsmtp.net
[62.13.149.78])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 66BEC133
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sat, 27 Jun 2015 18:47:57 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from mail-c237.authsmtp.com (mail-c237.authsmtp.com [62.13.128.237])
by punt17.authsmtp.com (8.14.2/8.14.2/) with ESMTP id t5RIltjg024782;
Sat, 27 Jun 2015 19:47:55 +0100 (BST)
Received: from muck (cpe-74-66-142-58.nyc.res.rr.com [74.66.142.58])
(authenticated bits=128)
by mail.authsmtp.com (8.14.2/8.14.2/) with ESMTP id t5RIlpN3088179
(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO);
Sat, 27 Jun 2015 19:47:54 +0100 (BST)
Date: Sat, 27 Jun 2015 14:47:51 -0400
From: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>
To: Jameson Lopp <jameson.lopp@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20150627184751.GA16460@muck>
References: <CALgxB7udA85BWetBGc-RN=72ZtVPK9Q5HW8YRDKA08M38XqJqQ@mail.gmail.com>
<CALqxMTHjszPcf=S20kquF=5y3zfYb+foP6tL1okOT2jhdrW08A@mail.gmail.com>
<CALgxB7tdFsQXzGRje=suC7Yaym_Whhtn2qrb3ykx2ZOBwwbE7w@mail.gmail.com>
<20150627163731.GA12820@muck>
<CALgxB7tsmHGiGuCmcdNuwjKxNfBpdq6U+x8eK=7sL6NekAfXow@mail.gmail.com>
<20150627173451.GA28181@muck>
<CADL_X_ekJ_agt+94z-9_cQGdTOQym5t+6X+G4+AxvNBRpYBnTg@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256;
protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="mYCpIKhGyMATD0i+"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CADL_X_ekJ_agt+94z-9_cQGdTOQym5t+6X+G4+AxvNBRpYBnTg@mail.gmail.com>
X-Server-Quench: 054b65c5-1cfd-11e5-9f74-002590a135d3
X-AuthReport-Spam: If SPAM / abuse - report it at:
http://www.authsmtp.com/abuse
X-AuthRoute: OCd2Yg0TA1ZNQRgX IjsJECJaVQIpKltL GxAVKBZePFsRUQkR
aQdMdAUUEkAaAgsB AmMbWl1eVFp7XGc7 bA5PawNDY05MQQBi
T01BRU1TWkFtY2Vd RmAdUhF6dgJPNn9y ZkZiEHBeWBZ8cBV4
X08HQzkbZGY1bX0W BkdcagNUcgZDfk5E aVUrVz1vNG8XDSg5
AwQ0PjZ0MThBHWx8 CjkXKkoVWksHVhU7 QggYGjAuBkBNWyJ7
MxwrYnQYG00Sen4z I1ZpfVMdMgN6
X-Authentic-SMTP: 61633532353630.1024:706
X-AuthFastPath: 0 (Was 255)
X-AuthSMTP-Origin: 74.66.142.58/587
X-AuthVirus-Status: No virus detected - but ensure you scan with your own
anti-virus system.
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,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@lists.linuxfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] A Proposed Compromise to the Block Size Limit
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Bitcoin Development Discussion <bitcoin-dev.lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/options/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 27 Jun 2015 18:47:58 -0000
--mYCpIKhGyMATD0i+
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Sat, Jun 27, 2015 at 02:02:05PM -0400, Jameson Lopp wrote:
> > For Bitcoin to have O(n) scaling you have to assume that the number of
> > validation nodes doesn't scale with the number of users, thus resulting
> > in a system where users trust others to do validation for them. That is
> > not a global consensus system; that's a trust-based system.
> >
> >
> Why does it matter what the "total work" of the network is? Anyone who is
> participating as a node on the network only cares about the resources
> required to run their own node, not the resources everyone else needs to
> run their nodes.
>=20
> Also, no assumption needed, it is quite clear that the number of nodes is
> not scaling along with the number of users. If anything it appears to be
> inversely proportional.
Which is a huge problem.
Concretely, what O(n^2) scaling means is that the more Bitcoin is
adopted, the harder it is to use in a decentralized way that doesn't
trust others; the blocksize limit puts a cap on how centralized Bitcoin
can get in a given technological landscape.
--=20
'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
0000000000000000007fc13ce02072d9cb2a6d51fae41fefcde7b3b283803d24
--mYCpIKhGyMATD0i+
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: Digital signature
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----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==
=lTgc
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--mYCpIKhGyMATD0i+--
|
