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
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
|
Return-Path: <kanzure@gmail.com>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E1272AB7
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Mon, 7 Dec 2015 22:54:08 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-io0-f169.google.com (mail-io0-f169.google.com
[209.85.223.169])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1F29E19A
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Mon, 7 Dec 2015 22:54:08 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by iofh3 with SMTP id h3so6238477iof.3
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Mon, 07 Dec 2015 14:54:07 -0800 (PST)
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
:content-type:content-transfer-encoding;
bh=ikRDBR17ZLOkys4KTYfjQvEyYN6dFnlmtyWh+pbUKME=;
b=CZaL9Q8vZLEMRX5RnVqoUnFE43dxB4yELJo3hnw1rS/nolWTAqqKiT2btC2fv9neOn
yrA6cqAmZR7thmRnDeLtxCCFEc16YxeuW1LqsT2OZ6GViGQzjn+5xrr5H1sJOgoBF061
75lQTZKgdfbmW+cUv/YFWzbB/BM3XI2v/j49X6auoOdwZvulOJUSL/p5SCcl13ssgA6e
ZjBjPjk8R9f+OP42ZmREOhmOTen1KiQu9cGIWjcER9ZMHxuSOzI6QbwV+2JyloKN+3pK
H2E8TLwReWAmKBrlHvkgh7FEWb0kw8/FOxSkT48cPYIUY5i2EWrpbKXC3DCOnstfV+hk
zj9w==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.107.17.160 with SMTP id 32mr965854ior.28.1449528847443; Mon,
07 Dec 2015 14:54:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.36.66.132 with HTTP; Mon, 7 Dec 2015 14:54:07 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CAAS2fgQyVs1fAEj+vqp8E2=FRnqsgs7VUKqALNBHNxRMDsHdVg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAAS2fgQyVs1fAEj+vqp8E2=FRnqsgs7VUKqALNBHNxRMDsHdVg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 7 Dec 2015 16:54:07 -0600
Message-ID: <CABaSBaybA8=R5HtrbEcmvpgyeOA8K3zJUEy55He57-hFkt5PHg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Bryan Bishop <kanzure@gmail.com>
To: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>,
Gregory Maxwell <greg@xiph.org>, Bryan Bishop <kanzure@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_20,DKIM_SIGNED,
DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, FREEMAIL_FROM,
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
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Capacity increases for the Bitcoin system.
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: Mon, 07 Dec 2015 22:54:09 -0000
On Mon, Dec 7, 2015 at 4:02 PM, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> The Scaling Bitcoin Workshop in HK is just wrapping up. Many fascinating
> proposals were presented. I think this would be a good time to share my
> view of the near term arc for capacity increases in the Bitcoin system. I
> believe we=E2=80=99re in a fantastic place right now and that the communi=
ty
> is ready to deliver on a clear forward path with a shared vision that
> addresses the needs of the system while upholding its values.
ACK.
One of the interesting take-aways from the workshops for me has been
that there is a large discrepancy between what developers are doing
and what's more widely known. When I was doing initial research and
work for my keynote at the Montreal conference (
http://diyhpl.us/~bryan/irc/bitcoin/scalingbitcoin-review.pdf -- an
attempt at being exhaustive, prior to seeing the workshop proposals ),
what I was most surprised by was the discrepancy between what we think
is being talked about versus what has been emphasized or socially
processed (lots of proposals appear in text, but review efforts are
sometimes "hidden" in corners of github pull request comments, for
example). As another example, the libsecp256k1 testing work reached a
level unseen except perhaps in the aerospace industry, but these sorts
of details are not apparent if you are reading bitcoin-dev archives.
It is very hard to listen to all ideas and find great ideas.
Sometimes, our time can be almost completely exhausted by evaluating
inefficient proposals, so it's not surprising that rough consensus
building could take time. I suspect we will see consensus moving in
positive directions around the proposals you have highlighted.
When Satoshi originally released the Bitcoin whitepaper, practically
everyone-- somehow with the exception of Hal Finney-- didn't look,
because the costs of evaluating cryptographic system proposals is so
high and everyone was jaded and burned out for the past umpteen
decades. (I have IRC logs from January 10th 2009 where I immediately
dismissed Bitcoin after I had seen its announcement on the
p2pfoundation mailing list, perhaps in retrospect I should not let
family tragedy so greatly impact my evaluation of proposals...). It's
hard to evaluate these proposals. Sometimes it may feel like random
proposals are review-resistant, or designed to burn our time up. But I
think this is more reflective of the simple fact that consensus takes
effort, and it's hard work, and this is to be expected in this sort of
system design.
Your email contains a good summary of recent scaling progress and of
efforts presented at the Hong Kong workshop. I like summaries. I have
previously recommended making more summaries and posting them to the
mailing list. In general, it would be good if developers were to write
summaries of recent work and efforts and post them to the bitcoin-dev
mailing list. BIP drafts are excellent. Long-term proposals are
excellent. Short-term coordination happens over IRC, and that makes
sense to me. But I would point out that many of the developments even
from, say, the Montreal workshop were notably absent from the mailing
list. Unless someone was paying close attention, they wouldn't have
noticed some of those efforts which, in some cases, haven't been
mentioned since. I suspect most of this is a matter of attention,
review and keeping track of loose ends, which can be admittedly
difficult.
Short (or even long) summaries in emails are helpful because they
increase the ability of the community to coordinate and figure out
what's going on. Often I will write an email that summarizes some
content simply because I estimate that I am going to forget the
details in the near future, and if I am going to forget them then it
seems likely that others might.... This creates a broad base of
proposals and content to build from when we're doing development work
in the future, making for a much richer community as a consequence.
The contributions from the scalingbitcoin.org workshops are a welcome
addition, and the proposal outlined in the above email contains a good
summary of recent progress. We need more of this sort of synthesis,
we're richer for it. I am excitedly looking forward to the impending
onslaught of Bitcoin progress.
- Bryan
http://heybryan.org/
1 512 203 0507
|
