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
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
|
Received: from sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.193]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-3.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <pete@petertodd.org>) id 1WSlXE-0007pC-Mp
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Wed, 26 Mar 2014 10:58:16 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of petertodd.org
designates 62.13.148.106 as permitted sender)
client-ip=62.13.148.106; envelope-from=pete@petertodd.org;
helo=outmail148106.authsmtp.co.uk;
Received: from outmail148106.authsmtp.co.uk ([62.13.148.106])
by sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
id 1WSlXD-00006S-5Q for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Wed, 26 Mar 2014 10:58:16 +0000
Received: from mail-c235.authsmtp.com (mail-c235.authsmtp.com [62.13.128.235])
by punt18.authsmtp.com (8.14.2/8.14.2/) with ESMTP id s2QAw7FF040038;
Wed, 26 Mar 2014 10:58:07 GMT
Received: from tilt ([209.211.43.92]) (authenticated bits=128)
by mail.authsmtp.com (8.14.2/8.14.2/) with ESMTP id s2QAw2WW008880
(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO);
Wed, 26 Mar 2014 10:58:04 GMT
Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2014 06:58:02 -0400
From: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>
To: Ricardo Filipe <ricardojdfilipe@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20140326105802.GC26997@tilt>
References: <20140322084702.GA13436@savin> <20140322150836.GG3180@nl.grid.coop>
<20140322190825.GB6047@savin> <532DE7E6.4050304@monetize.io>
<20140325122851.GA9818@savin>
<CABsx9T149f9of9+sYMFazAxtRi=ZJrpA1B41buERD3+j7NGKmg@mail.gmail.com>
<20140325134918.GB7929@savin>
<CALC81CPrzRPsMcw2CLOFhDJx8We_cUQ7OW1OnkoDvLz4Uum_Cw@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256;
protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="bAmEntskrkuBymla"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CALC81CPrzRPsMcw2CLOFhDJx8We_cUQ7OW1OnkoDvLz4Uum_Cw@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
X-Server-Quench: 82137098-b4d5-11e3-b802-002590a15da7
X-AuthReport-Spam: If SPAM / abuse - report it at:
http://www.authsmtp.com/abuse
X-AuthRoute: OCd2Yg0TA1ZNQRgX IjsJECJaVQIpKltL GxAVKBZePFsRUQkR
aQdMdAQUFVQGAgsB AmIbWlReVVV7WWY7 aQpYcwdcY1RKXBtj
UldMSlVNFUsrA31w QRx5NRlyfw1OeDBx bURmVj5TXkV5ckZ0
SlMGETkDeGZhPWMC AkhYdR5UcAFPdx8U a1UrBXRDAzANdhES
HhM4ODE3eDlSNilR RRkIIFQOdA43BDMx AhsCFDQpBgUdXSg3
LhknLFcGDQ4KL0A3 OEEwMf9/
X-Authentic-SMTP: 61633532353630.1023:706
X-AuthFastPath: 0 (Was 255)
X-AuthSMTP-Origin: 209.211.43.92/587
X-AuthVirus-Status: No virus detected - but ensure you scan with your own
anti-virus system.
X-Spam-Score: -1.5 (-)
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 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record
X-Headers-End: 1WSlXD-00006S-5Q
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>,
Gavin Andresen <gavin@bitcoinfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Tree-chains preliminary summary
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: Wed, 26 Mar 2014 10:58:16 -0000
--bAmEntskrkuBymla
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 08:40:40PM +0000, Ricardo Filipe wrote:
> 2014-03-25 13:49 GMT+00:00 Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>:
> > On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 08:45:00AM -0400, Gavin Andresen wrote:
> >> On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 8:28 AM, Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> > Bitcoin doesn't scale. There's a lot of issues at hand here, but the
> >> > most fundemental of them is that to create a block you need to update
> >> > the state of the UTXO set, and the way Bitcoin is designed means that
> >> > updating that state requires bandwidth equal to all the transaction
> >> > volume to keep up with the changes to what set. Long story short, we=
get
> >> > O(n^2) scaling, which is just plain infeasible.
> >> >
> >>
> >> We have a fundamental disagreement here.
> >>
> >> If you go back and read Satoshi's original thoughts on scaling, it is =
clear
> >> that he imagined tens of thousands of mining nodes and hundreds of mil=
lions
> >> of lightweight SPV users.
> >
> > Yeah, about that...
> >
> > https://blockchain.info/pools
> >
>=20
> On-topic:
> This argument is quite the fallacy. The only reason we have that few
> pools is because each of their miners doesn't find it feasible to mine
> "on their own". if you count the individual miners on those pools you
> will get to the scale Gavin was trying to point out.
Yeah, that's part of my fundemental disagreement with him: I draw a
sharp line between mining - the act of validating and constructing new
blocks - and hashing - the act of solving proof-of-work problems. The
latter definitely has incentives to decentralize due to simple physics:
it's cheaper per unit hashing power to get rid of a small amount of
waste heat than a large amount. The former requires a full node, and
that full node is a fixed cost overhead related to the number of
transactions per second. Any fixed cost overhead discourages
decentralization, and encourages centralization.
> Nevertheless i think that is just a minor disagreement, since tree
> chains help decentralization.
Yup. Quite importantly, the model is for any one miner to be able to
fully participate at the same level as any other miner by mining some
section of the tree. As your reward is linked to blocks mined, there
will always be some level at which you are mining blocks at a reasonably
low variance and you don't need to join a pool to achieve that low
varience. Equally your resources to keep up with that part of the tree
can be made reasonably low, and that cost only grows at the log of the
total transaction volume.
--=20
'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
0000000000000000f4f5ba334791a4102917e4d3f22f6ad7f2c4f15d97307fe2
--bAmEntskrkuBymla
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: Digital signature
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)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=N8AU
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--bAmEntskrkuBymla--
|
