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
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
|
Return-Path: <truthcoin@gmail.com>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F3CB8BCF
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Tue, 11 Jul 2017 20:18:04 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-qt0-f172.google.com (mail-qt0-f172.google.com
[209.85.216.172])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0338716D
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Tue, 11 Jul 2017 20:18:03 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-qt0-f172.google.com with SMTP id b40so2839081qtb.2
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Tue, 11 Jul 2017 13:18:03 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025;
h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version
:in-reply-to:content-language;
bh=HeLWqGS8n51Vk4N+nJKPVgfSGMejNbrm5H3Ib7IAaG8=;
b=AMEQ3JuouZPiItx0Cj1vzp/ED702G8xSdz3bUNZxNs352oq88Z/usGPAC68+K4UIHq
1CSP5aOcDX+Ec7qOEpkzkltLusi9p++XmQBVuCDEkjX0CDFymqjOOLRIY6s4f3eIWrKQ
7zgGGeZhhemmuI3/Ss9Z9DVl+nCqqYzj/Lx1QfBoN+g/Yc9hwB/oZF84sMGtYpBZPNT8
WZ5zSj0Yf1yFhrFscgjpx0Z6yy2b/jz+eL/JVauH+4zaWZR3b7vvCOM/eKi7sNoJ6Zjq
iCapaqwGa9CGHl39szvgJylXAVpkSK10c5rdlBbX0o/DsRpyQ37+ig74NInoW7jRSQne
ISUg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=1e100.net; s=20161025;
h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:message-id:date
:user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language;
bh=HeLWqGS8n51Vk4N+nJKPVgfSGMejNbrm5H3Ib7IAaG8=;
b=K2YdR+7Rbc7rq065rVqhDeCp0hs+gX2DA6mIM5PvDQkZv3+tbMdI7VoSSUjBbui2lc
Qjy9i2AqilHNlCxNyLFqol2+Hbf2J0rmav3TnFm1pZBve+YGgqXjZEB3Ne7mX3lUFxCy
r7/a+n5s5Gf1PTTarbTJmSWnp2cESGNwiW00lrlPfBch6TY3PZx1rCna/zx3wVtvRl7l
Lq3E+00hDtblMIkNTKafFnM9XOv2elhNFpLf3Q5i5qbUIpc2YYz0f/uSfkN8vFiDvJUb
2OD5Fz+Nkm495TnwthUyQOKy8PFVqjQEmTE/Ggwyvogiqyv4SJMFbe6mSaEusBs8q177
xTow==
X-Gm-Message-State: AIVw113w8/Shnj4BK1dQH/VzqINdUCCKtL0QICiyHrbCdXfEge3mNsJ0
Cnr0zgPiRhJXe85x
X-Received: by 10.200.54.38 with SMTP id m35mr2186475qtb.220.1499804282974;
Tue, 11 Jul 2017 13:18:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.104] (ool-45726efb.dyn.optonline.net.
[69.114.110.251]) by smtp.googlemail.com with ESMTPSA id
r33sm237477qtc.43.2017.07.11.13.18.01
(version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128);
Tue, 11 Jul 2017 13:18:01 -0700 (PDT)
To: Chris Stewart <chris@suredbits.com>,
Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
References: <0119661e-a11a-6d4b-c9ec-fd510bd4f144@gmail.com>
<CAGL6+mHQZ3UP10msk65OO+Uk0hn7j+dkmJap_M7FgWfSZaYYJQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Paul Sztorc <truthcoin@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <f79b9693-b8a5-c496-9dd9-d74704855d0e@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2017 16:18:04 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/52.2.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAGL6+mHQZ3UP10msk65OO+Uk0hn7j+dkmJap_M7FgWfSZaYYJQ@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="------------96CC1F207186514D125BC366"
Content-Language: en-US
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.5 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,
DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, FREEMAIL_FROM, HTML_MESSAGE,
RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,
RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM autolearn=no version=3.3.1
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
smtp1.linux-foundation.org
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 11 Jul 2017 21:09:27 +0000
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Updating the Scaling Roadmap
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: Tue, 11 Jul 2017 20:18:05 -0000
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------96CC1F207186514D125BC366
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi Chris,
On 7/11/2017 12:03 PM, Chris Stewart wrote:
> Concept ACK.
>
> I think you are overstating the readiness of drivechains though. I
> think the optimistic estimate for drivechains to be ready for bitcoin
> core is a year out from today. More likely the date should be early
> 2018. Still a lot of work to be done! :-)
It depends on interest, I think. What remains to be done is more easily
parallelized, and in some cases (eg smartphone wallets) there are
incentives for private individuals and businesses to hustle their part
out (merely for reasons of competitiveness).
> Also I don't know if I would put a hard fork suggestion in the scaling
> map. If drivechains are successful they should be viewed as the way we
> scale -- not hard forking the protocol. Do you still have capacity
> concerns if drivechains are successful?
I wrote the roadmap to try to be representative of a Core / developer
position. I am philosophically against hard forks, but HFs were in the
end of the previous roadmap so I felt it should stay. And, I felt that
if I decided to unilaterally remove it, it would be perceived as
excessive campaigning for Drivechain. And I also felt that to remove it,
when so many industry members recently put their weight behind a fast
hard fork, would be perceived as a reaction to that attempt, and would
then overwhelm the document with political polarization, for really no
benefit.
Paul
>
> -Chris
>
> On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 11:50 AM, Paul Sztorc via bitcoin-dev
> <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>> wrote:
>
>
> Summary
> =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
>
> In my opinion, Greg Maxwell's scaling roadmap [1] succeeded in a fe=
w
> crucial ways. One success was that it synchronized the entire Bitco=
in
> community, helping to bring finality to the (endless) conversations=
of
> that time, and get everyone back to work. However, I feel that the =
Dec
> 7, 2015 roadmap is simply too old to serve this function any
> longer. We
> should revise it: remove what has been accomplished, introduce new
>
--------------96CC1F207186514D125BC366
Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Hi Chris,<br>
<br>
On 7/11/2017 12:03 PM, Chris Stewart wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAGL6+mHQZ3UP10msk65OO+Uk0hn7j+dkmJap_M7FgWfSZaYYJQ@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>
<div>
<div>Concept ACK.<br>
<br>
</div>
I think you are overstating the readiness of drivechains
though. I think the optimistic estimate for drivechains to
be ready for bitcoin core is a year out from today. More
likely the date should be early 2018. Still a lot of work to
be done! :-)<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
It depends on interest, I think. What remains to be done is more
easily parallelized, and in some cases (eg smartphone wallets) there
are incentives for private individuals and businesses to hustle
their part out (merely for reasons of competitiveness).<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAGL6+mHQZ3UP10msk65OO+Uk0hn7j+dkmJap_M7FgWfSZaYYJQ@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>Also I don't know if I would put a hard fork suggestion in
the scaling map. If drivechains are successful they should be
viewed as the way we scale -- not hard forking the protocol.
Do you still have capacity concerns if drivechains are
successful? <br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
I wrote the roadmap to try to be representative of a Core /
developer position. I am philosophically against hard forks, but HFs
were in the end of the previous roadmap so I felt it should stay.
And, I felt that if I decided to unilaterally remove it, it would be
perceived as excessive campaigning for Drivechain. And I also felt
that to remove it, when so many industry members recently put their
weight behind a fast hard fork, would be perceived as a reaction to
that attempt, and would then overwhelm the document with political
polarization, for really no benefit.<br>
<br>
Paul<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAGL6+mHQZ3UP10msk65OO+Uk0hn7j+dkmJap_M7FgWfSZaYYJQ@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="ltr">
<div><br>
</div>
-Chris<br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 11:50 AM, Paul
Sztorc via bitcoin-dev <span dir="ltr"><<a
href="mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><br>
Summary<br>
=========<br>
<br>
In my opinion, Greg Maxwell's scaling roadmap [1] succeeded
in a few<br>
crucial ways. One success was that it synchronized the
entire Bitcoin<br>
community, helping to bring finality to the (endless)
conversations of<br>
that time, and get everyone back to work. However, I feel
that the Dec<br>
7, 2015 roadmap is simply too old to serve this function any
longer. We<br>
should revise it: remove what has been accomplished,
introduce new<br>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p><br>
</p>
</body>
</html>
--------------96CC1F207186514D125BC366--
|
