MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CABsx9T1rN9j8dkFgEqw6dMYfwht8Z=WEzEObZx11XQ59SF4EiQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAPg+sBj-wA1DMrwkQRWnzQoB5NR-q=2-5=WDAAUYfSpXRZSTqw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CABsx9T1NqBX9Tr8vRCtCeri76e0wrtkvRhEPyG9Advv_3Uqxng@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAPg+sBjwVxYTOn3+bwahHGSGpBh5BCh5b4OOFkw_2x97YZSFPQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CA+w+GKS_wDDgf=HjPgD5QZ_wdTRg7i_oYUgBRmh9HpufETAP=w@mail.gmail.com>
	<CABm2gDqvpWdHdjo1OBzbw-6ivu5DEGcfvK8duc3-KAjsSeWapA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CA+w+GKRPPcgCO0pBP2PjKGU49tWuBoF1vRJzY+4fWn71HOVDPw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CABm2gDqV1NdHJZBmUWX3AxVYy6ErU7AB-wsWgGzbiTL1twdq6g@mail.gmail.com>
	<CA+w+GKTLBWj6b4ppwrmnXb_gybYFcrX7haLBSdCnMaijy2An4w@mail.gmail.com>
	<CABm2gDpWPhYNh=g-ZXCsfe-aPq=N6NKSWKP9kr-KtPVrWAxB7Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAAO2FKHsczkwwqO87cJFtxBp9JE=vf=GcxLx37GpRUkPq8VGHQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAPg+sBjvzxGAPvk6PEhuxWzg00+krY_+goZbCLTWngvrCVCKvA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CABsx9T1rN9j8dkFgEqw6dMYfwht8Z=WEzEObZx11XQ59SF4EiQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2015 15:54:47 +0200
Message-ID: <CAPg+sBi+b46H_4aMccrfUAZKuG2JiY_wyKbDxdJA+jTLKsy51w@mail.gmail.com>
From: Pieter Wuille <pieter.wuille@gmail.com>
To: Gavin Andresen <gavinandresen@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e01537ed80fe5e7051c7ca156
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Block size following technological growth
Precedence: list

--089e01537ed80fe5e7051c7ca156
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

On Tue, Aug 4, 2015 at 3:12 PM, Gavin Andresen <gavinandresen@gmail.com>
wrote:

> On Tue, Aug 4, 2015 at 7:27 AM, Pieter Wuille via bitcoin-dev <
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
>> I would say that things already demonstrately got terrible. The mining
>> landscape is very centralized, with apparently a majority depending on
>> agreements to trust each other's announced blocks without validation.
>>
> And that is a problem... why?
>

If miners need to form alliances of trusting each other's blocks without
validation to overcome the inefficiencies of slow block propagation, I
think we have a system that is in direct conflict with the word
"permissionless" that you use later.


> As Bitcoin grows, pieces of the ecosystem will specialize. Satoshi's
> original code did everything: hashing, block assembly, wallet, consensus,
> network. That is changing, and that is OK.
>

Specialization is perfectly fine.
>
> I believe that if the above would have happened overnight, people would
> have cried wolf. But somehow it happened slow enough, and "things kept
> working".
>
> I don't think that this is a good criterion. Bitcoin can "work" with
> gigabyte blocks today, if everyone uses the same few blockchain validation
> services, the same few online wallets, and mining is done by a cartel that
> only allows joining after signing a contract so they can sue you if you
> create an invalid block. Do you think people will then agree that "things
> got demonstratebly worse"?
>
> Don't turn Bitcoin into something uninteresting, please.
>
Why is what you, personally, find interesting relevant?
>

I find it interesting to build a system that has potential to bring about
innovation.

I understand you want to build an extremely decentralized system, where
> everybody participating trusts nothing except the genesis block hash.
>

That is not true, I'm sorry if that is the impression I gave.

I see centralization and scalability as a trade-off, and for better or for
worse, the block chain only offers one trade-off. I want to see technology
built on top that introduces lower levels of trust than typical fully
centralized systems, while offering increased convenience, speed,
reliability, and scale. I just don't think that all of that can happen on
the lowest layer without hurting everything built on top. We need different
trade-offs, and the blockchain is just one, but a very fundamental one.

I think it is more interesting to build a system that works for hundreds of
> millions of people, with no central point of control and the opportunity
> for ANYBODY to participate at any level. Permission-less innovation is what
> I find interesting.
>

That sounds amazing, but do you think that Bitcoin, as it exists today, can
scale to hundreds of millions of users, while retaining any glimpse of
permission-lessness and decentralization? I think we need low-trust
off-chain systems and other innovations to make that happen.


> And I think the current "demonstrably terrible" Bitcoin system is still
> INCREDIBLY interesting.
>

I'm happy for you, then.

-- 
Pieter

--089e01537ed80fe5e7051c7ca156
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr">On Tue, Aug 4, 2015 at 3:12 PM, Gavin Andresen <span dir=
=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=3D"mailto:gavinandresen@gmail.com" target=3D"_blank">g=
avinandresen@gmail.com</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br><div class=3D"gmail_extra">=
<div class=3D"gmail_quote"><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margi=
n:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr">=
<div class=3D"gmail_extra"><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><span class=3D"">On T=
ue, Aug 4, 2015 at 7:27 AM, Pieter Wuille via bitcoin-dev <span dir=3D"ltr"=
>&lt;<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" target=3D"_bl=
ank">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br><blockq=
uote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc =
solid;padding-left:1ex"><p dir=3D"ltr">I would say that things already demo=
nstrately got terrible. The mining landscape is very centralized, with appa=
rently a majority depending on agreements to trust each other&#39;s announc=
ed blocks without validation.</p></blockquote></span><div>And that is a pro=
blem... why?</div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>If min=
ers need to form alliances of trusting each other&#39;s blocks without vali=
dation to overcome the inefficiencies of slow block propagation, I think we=
 have a system that is in direct conflict with the word &quot;permissionles=
s&quot; that you use later. <br></div><div>=C2=A0</div><blockquote class=3D=
"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding=
-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><div class=3D"gmail_=
quote">As Bitcoin grows, pieces of the ecosystem will specialize. Satoshi&#=
39;s original code did everything: hashing, block assembly, wallet, consens=
us, network. That is changing, and that is OK.</div></div></div></blockquot=
e><div><br></div><div class=3D"gmail_quote">Specialization is perfectly fin=
e. <span class=3D""><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0=
 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><p dir=3D"ltr">I believe=
 that if the above would have happened overnight, people would have cried w=
olf. But somehow it happened slow enough, and &quot;things kept working&quo=
t;.</p>
<p dir=3D"ltr">I don&#39;t think that this is a good criterion. Bitcoin can=
 &quot;work&quot; with gigabyte blocks today, if everyone uses the same few=
 blockchain validation services, the same few online wallets, and mining is=
 done by a cartel that only allows joining after signing a contract so they=
 can sue you if you create an invalid block. Do you think people will then =
agree that &quot;things got demonstratebly worse&quot;?</p>
<p dir=3D"ltr">Don&#39;t turn Bitcoin into something uninteresting, please.=
</p><span><font color=3D"#888888">
</font></span></blockquote></span></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" s=
tyle=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div=
 dir=3D"ltr"><div class=3D"gmail_extra">Why is what you, personally, find i=
nteresting relevant?</div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I find it =
interesting to build a system that has potential to bring about innovation.=
 <br><br></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex=
;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div class=
=3D"gmail_extra">I understand you want to build an extremely decentralized =
system, where everybody participating trusts nothing except the genesis blo=
ck hash.</div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>That is not true, I&#3=
9;m sorry if that is the impression I gave.<br><br></div><div>I see central=
ization and scalability as a trade-off, and for better or for worse, the bl=
ock chain only offers one trade-off. I want to see technology built on top =
that introduces lower levels of trust than typical fully centralized system=
s, while offering increased convenience, speed, reliability, and scale. I j=
ust don&#39;t think that all of that can happen on the lowest layer without=
 hurting everything built on top. We need different trade-offs, and the blo=
ckchain is just one, but a very fundamental one.<br><br></div><blockquote c=
lass=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;=
padding-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div class=3D"gmail_extra">I think it is=
 more interesting to build a system that works for hundreds of millions of =
people, with no central point of control and the opportunity for ANYBODY to=
 participate at any level. Permission-less innovation is what I find intere=
sting.<br></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>That sounds amazing,=
 but do you think that Bitcoin, as it exists today, can scale to hundreds o=
f millions of users, while retaining any glimpse of permission-lessness and=
 decentralization? I think we need low-trust off-chain systems and other in=
novations to make that happen. <br><br></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quo=
te" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"=
><div dir=3D"ltr"><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br>And I think the current &q=
uot;demonstrably terrible&quot; Bitcoin system is still INCREDIBLY interest=
ing.</div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I&#39;m happy for you, the=
n.<br><br>-- <br></div><div>Pieter<br><br></div></div></div></div>

--089e01537ed80fe5e7051c7ca156--