summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
diff options
context:
space:
mode:
authorMark Friedenbach <mark@friedenbach.org>2015-07-30 11:02:43 -0700
committerbitcoindev <bitcoindev@gnusha.org>2015-07-30 18:03:04 +0000
commit81f1a512758b214eb3d2fcb3f48fbebd87591a5b (patch)
tree9b1d53da223a2a7c5b46b68a0816e89376c02fdf
parentbcd97a18128d00309106a6c1d3e6363ac896c678 (diff)
downloadpi-bitcoindev-81f1a512758b214eb3d2fcb3f48fbebd87591a5b.tar.gz
pi-bitcoindev-81f1a512758b214eb3d2fcb3f48fbebd87591a5b.zip
Re: [bitcoin-dev] Why Satoshi's temporary anti-spam measure isn'ttemporary
-rw-r--r--9d/9262c294bde597e6fa91c178c5b5661ea27ecc165
1 files changed, 165 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/9d/9262c294bde597e6fa91c178c5b5661ea27ecc b/9d/9262c294bde597e6fa91c178c5b5661ea27ecc
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..869884d66
--- /dev/null
+++ b/9d/9262c294bde597e6fa91c178c5b5661ea27ecc
@@ -0,0 +1,165 @@
+Return-Path: <mark@friedenbach.org>
+Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
+ [172.17.192.35])
+ by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 935AE405
+ for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
+ Thu, 30 Jul 2015 18:03:04 +0000 (UTC)
+X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
+Received: from mail-io0-f170.google.com (mail-io0-f170.google.com
+ [209.85.223.170])
+ by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E6CC6112
+ for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
+ Thu, 30 Jul 2015 18:03:03 +0000 (UTC)
+Received: by ioii16 with SMTP id i16so61662715ioi.0
+ for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
+ Thu, 30 Jul 2015 11:03:03 -0700 (PDT)
+X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
+ d=1e100.net; s=20130820;
+ h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date
+ :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type;
+ bh=fJyugUl+Q91H3addQZoGPuXRf8Cpk++uaW0wwgq3Kp0=;
+ b=MA3fplZwpNGOr+iGvC3z0brzeX76hvMookA1G+u5Z0WoF3lKqAKyrkxfPeKXrE8cRp
+ qWBS1K3tYkpxZouA4jZD0IyMozKHkq4+p+SAFIBELfyAjbagVTPW+pbIJe/V7Cq2eH1o
+ Kt2xnEcPpPGfUq6z/0mk0qM7I5oBs4SQGo0d159WaKvn9w3xONfwYPyB9j1xKinQDTdD
+ PcksWNDIzgJuoesiMG+mqA1oDSVwKh35qiyRbrZj3L/z/biFTs1SJ9Ju/etk44yih0aG
+ j5QZ8+KWqzehxlxwyxHZH2oM78RqIBTvRL5IYFtoywi/bYqAirep1iTAhxr9j83VUInw
+ JfgA==
+X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkPPMLAHM4I2shWpS+NdNy+KOq0mpqHWOu/nNNrKocJMC3bbtNrWvkhJL7fvzTF126zIlSr
+X-Received: by 10.107.137.13 with SMTP id l13mr13770403iod.159.1438279383426;
+ Thu, 30 Jul 2015 11:03:03 -0700 (PDT)
+MIME-Version: 1.0
+Received: by 10.107.158.140 with HTTP; Thu, 30 Jul 2015 11:02:43 -0700 (PDT)
+X-Originating-IP: [50.0.37.37]
+In-Reply-To: <4330019.CpFTjXpmfm@coldstorage>
+References: <1B7F00D3-41AE-44BF-818D-EC4EF279DC11@gmail.com>
+ <CABaSBaxyQja9bqDsyfWubR1R-Xf2tqmSmU-GW_z7VQTxbBagrQ@mail.gmail.com>
+ <1689926.ZjkxyJjokn@coldstorage> <4330019.CpFTjXpmfm@coldstorage>
+From: Mark Friedenbach <mark@friedenbach.org>
+Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2015 11:02:43 -0700
+Message-ID: <CAOG=w-vZ+5fBxpZ2bVgg_H9VD4cmSDhtkaOu4_UH3gvw-QfkEw@mail.gmail.com>
+To: Thomas Zander <thomas@thomaszander.se>
+Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113ed350bcc309051c1b8375
+X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,HTML_MESSAGE,
+ 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 <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
+Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Why Satoshi's temporary anti-spam measure
+ isn'ttemporary
+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: Thu, 30 Jul 2015 18:03:04 -0000
+
+--001a113ed350bcc309051c1b8375
+Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
+
+They aren't really so closely related as you are implying, since bitcoin is
+a trustlessly decentralized system. At present every participant needs to
+be able to validate the entire chain in order to be certain that their copy
+of the ledger state is correct, and miners need to be able to incrementally
+validate blocks in particularly short timeframes or else.
+
+It is possible for a decentralized system like bitcoin to scale via
+distribution in a way that introduces minimal trust, for example by
+probabilistic validation and distribution of fraud proofs. However changes
+to bitcoin consensus rules (mostly soft-forks) are required in order to
+make this possible.
+
+I don't want to discourage thinking about scaling bitcoin in such ways, as
+it is a viable medium term proposal. However right now with the bitcoin
+that exists today parallel distribution and decentralization are at odds
+with each other.
+
+On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 10:42 AM, Thomas Zander via bitcoin-dev <
+bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
+
+> On Thursday 30. July 2015 18.07.40 Thomas Zander via bitcoin-dev wrote:
+> > Remember when we went from single-core CPUs to multi-core (and
+> > hyperthreading)? Developers were saying it was useless because all apps
+> > were still single-threaded. And now, 15 years later, there are
+> fantastic
+> > frameworks to make this easy.
+> >
+> > Same will happen with distributed. Any assumption you wrote above is not
+> > inherent in the technology.
+>
+> My brain went a bit to fast (dinner was being served, she made me close the
+> laptop...) and wrote distributed above while the topic is decentralized.
+> Its not entirely wrong, even; Libraries or approaches that do distributed
+> will
+> be useful for decentralized systems. ;)
+>
+> --
+> Thomas Zander
+> _______________________________________________
+> bitcoin-dev mailing list
+> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
+> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
+>
+
+--001a113ed350bcc309051c1b8375
+Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
+Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
+
+<div dir=3D"ltr"><div><div>They aren&#39;t really so closely related as you=
+ are implying, since bitcoin is a trustlessly decentralized system. At pres=
+ent every participant needs to be able to validate the entire chain in orde=
+r to be certain that their copy of the ledger state is correct, and miners =
+need to be able to incrementally validate blocks in particularly short time=
+frames or else.<br><br></div>It is possible for a decentralized system like=
+ bitcoin to scale via distribution in a way that introduces minimal trust, =
+for example by probabilistic validation and distribution of fraud proofs. H=
+owever changes to bitcoin consensus rules (mostly soft-forks) are required =
+in order to make this possible.<br><br></div>I don&#39;t want to discourage=
+ thinking about scaling bitcoin in such ways, as it is a viable medium term=
+ proposal. However right now with the bitcoin that exists today parallel di=
+stribution and decentralization are at odds with each other.<br></div><div =
+class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 a=
+t 10:42 AM, Thomas Zander via bitcoin-dev <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=3D"=
+mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" target=3D"_blank">bitcoin-dev=
+@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br><blockquote class=3D"gm=
+ail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-le=
+ft:1ex"><span class=3D"">On Thursday 30. July <a href=3D"tel:2015%2018.07.4=
+0" value=3D"+12015180740">2015 18.07.40</a> Thomas Zander via bitcoin-dev w=
+rote:<br>
+&gt; Remember when we went from single-core CPUs to multi-core (and<br>
+&gt; hyperthreading)? Developers were saying it was useless because all app=
+s<br>
+&gt; were=C2=A0 still single-threaded.=C2=A0 And now, 15 years later, there=
+ are fantastic<br>
+&gt; frameworks to make this easy.<br>
+&gt;<br>
+&gt; Same will happen with distributed. Any assumption you wrote above is n=
+ot<br>
+&gt; inherent in the technology.<br>
+<br>
+</span>My brain went a bit to fast (dinner was being served, she made me cl=
+ose the<br>
+laptop...) and wrote distributed above while the topic is decentralized.<br=
+>
+Its not entirely wrong, even; Libraries or approaches that do distributed w=
+ill<br>
+be useful for decentralized systems.=C2=A0 ;)<br>
+<div class=3D"HOEnZb"><div class=3D"h5"><br>
+--<br>
+Thomas Zander<br>
+_______________________________________________<br>
+bitcoin-dev mailing list<br>
+<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org">bitcoin-dev@lists.=
+linuxfoundation.org</a><br>
+<a href=3D"https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev" =
+rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mail=
+man/listinfo/bitcoin-dev</a><br>
+</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div>
+
+--001a113ed350bcc309051c1b8375--
+