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
|
Return-Path: <tomz@freedommail.ch>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 47C445A9
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 21 Apr 2017 08:27:42 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mx-out03.mykolab.com (mx.kolabnow.com [95.128.36.1])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5A73A206
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 21 Apr 2017 08:27:41 +0000 (UTC)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at kolabnow.com
X-Spam-Score: -2.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW
autolearn=ham version=3.3.1
Received: from mx03.mykolab.com (mx03.mykolab.com [10.20.7.101])
by mx-out03.mykolab.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1D44822100
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 21 Apr 2017 10:27:38 +0200 (CEST)
From: Tom Zander <tomz@freedommail.ch>
To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2017 10:27:36 +0200
Message-ID: <2769926.GQkkf7il9e@strawberry>
In-Reply-To: <20170420203211.GR10783@boulet.lan>
References: <CAFVRnypbQQ-vsSLqv48cYaqTCty4R1DmFRqfAvxe4mAqyQNXxQ@mail.gmail.com>
<2652067.QRUcnb74ny@strawberry> <20170420203211.GR10783@boulet.lan>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
smtp1.linux-foundation.org
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 21 Apr 2017 09:28:40 +0000
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Small Nodes: A Better Alternative to Pruned Nodes
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol 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: Fri, 21 Apr 2017 08:27:42 -0000
On Thursday, 20 April 2017 22:32:12 CEST Andrew Poelstra wrote:
> > > If you are downloading 450,000 blocks, you will need to
> > > connect to an expected 46 peers to download the whole blockchain.
> >=20
> > I don=E2=80=99t really see the problem here, even if your math is a off.
> > (Statistics is difficult, I know). Connecting to many nodes to download
> > faster is really not an issue and already happens.
>=20
> I think the expected number of peers is actually ~47.75
Nice to join bitcoin-dev, Andrew. Haven=E2=80=99t seen you post here before.
I=E2=80=99m not sure how you reached that strange number, but I have to poi=
nt out=20
your number is quite useless.
The actual amount of nodes you need to be 100% sure you find all the blocks=
=20
when you know each node will have a completely random 25% of the blocks is=
=20
not a maths problem that leads to a single answer because of the randomness=
=20
involved.
The actual answer is a series of probabilities.
Same as the answer is to the age old question; how many coin flips does it=
=20
take to be 100% certain I have at least one =E2=80=9CHeads=E2=80=9D.
In our blocks retrieval scenario; with num-nodes < 4, probability is zero.
There is a really really small chance you will get 100% of the blocks with =
4=20
nodes (actual number depends on the amount of total blocks you are looking=
=20
for).
And this goes up as you add more nodes, but never reaches 100%
At the other end of this question you can ask what the chance is of at leas=
t=20
one block being lost when there are N nodes, a block nobody has. That chanc=
e=20
is small with current > 6000 nodes, but not zero (a second reason why the=20
previous parag never reaches 100%).
Bottom line, it is silly to assume 100% of the nodes would be partial-
pruning, and if you continue on that path you will only have probabilities=
=20
to predict how many nodes it takes to have 100% coverage, exact numbers are=
=20
worse than useless, they are misleading.
As I said in my initial email, statistics is hard. Crypto is much easier in=
=20
that it is absolute. Either correct or false. Never in between.
To repeat, the goal of this pruning method is not to replace a full=20
=E2=80=9Carchival=E2=80=9D node, the goal of this pruning node is to provid=
e an improvement=20
over the current pruning node which stops any and all serving of historical=
=20
blocks.
Anyone that feels the need to talk about pruning modes like 100% of the ful=
l=20
nodes will run it are in actual fact not talking about the real world.=20
Distributed systems will never (and should never) end up being a mono-
culture. Diversity is the essential thing you aim for.
I would suggest we focus on the real world and not on irreleavant math=20
experiments that only lead to confusion.
=2D-=20
Tom Zander
Blog: https://zander.github.io
Vlog: https://vimeo.com/channels/tomscryptochannel
|
