Received: from sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.193] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-1.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1U5sTL-0007OV-9x for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Thu, 14 Feb 2013 06:39:07 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of petertodd.org designates 62.13.149.77 as permitted sender) client-ip=62.13.149.77; envelope-from=pete@petertodd.org; helo=outmail149077.authsmtp.com; Received: from outmail149077.authsmtp.com ([62.13.149.77]) by sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) id 1U5sTH-0003Ge-Q0 for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Thu, 14 Feb 2013 06:39:07 +0000 Received: from mail-c233.authsmtp.com (mail-c233.authsmtp.com [62.13.128.233]) by punt7.authsmtp.com (8.14.2/8.14.2/Kp) with ESMTP id r1E6cu1Y038086; Thu, 14 Feb 2013 06:38:56 GMT Received: from savin (76-10-178-109.dsl.teksavvy.com [76.10.178.109]) (authenticated bits=128) by mail.authsmtp.com (8.14.2/8.14.2/) with ESMTP id r1E6cnhL023644 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Thu, 14 Feb 2013 06:38:52 GMT Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2013 01:39:01 -0500 From: Peter Todd To: Gregory Maxwell Message-ID: <20130214063901.GB15157@savin> References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="bCsyhTFzCvuiizWE" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-Server-Quench: 32c20b56-7671-11e2-a49c-0025907707a1 X-AuthReport-Spam: If SPAM / abuse - report it at: http://www.authsmtp.com/abuse X-AuthRoute: OCd2Yg0TA1ZNQRgX IjsJECJaVQIpKltL GxAVKBZePFsRUQkR aQdMdwYUHlAWAgsB AmUbW1JeU1V7XGE7 bAxPbAVDY01GQQRq WVdMSlVNFUsqAGkH VUBGLhlwdANCfDBx YEFlWD5YXhd4dRR4 RFNTE2oHeGZhPWIC AURRJB5UcAFPdx9C bVB4BXJDAzANdhES HhM4ODE3eDlSNilR RRkIIFQOdA4qGDU7 XQgFBzwzHEsKDy83 KBclYkAVGEcdO1kz Nl1pQ08cPn1aDwpS Hk9MCyZFJl4HXGIq Cx9dFVIeHXVXRSBX AVUjIhZJBFQA X-Authentic-SMTP: 61633532353630.1021:706 X-AuthFastPath: 0 (Was 255) X-AuthSMTP-Origin: 76.10.178.109/587 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: 1U5sTH-0003Ge-Q0 Cc: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Incorporating block validation rule modifications into the block chain X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2013 06:39:07 -0000 --bCsyhTFzCvuiizWE Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 05:02:39PM -0800, Gregory Maxwell wrote: > It's the year 2043=E2=80=94 the Y2038 problem is behind us and everyone is > beginning to forget how terrible it turned out to be=E2=80=94 By some am= azing > chance Bitcoin still exists and is widely used. Off-chain system like > fidelity bonded banks are vibrant and widely used providing scalable > instant and completely private transactions to millions of people. Speaking of fidelity bonded banks I think it needs to be made clear that really trustworthy bonded banks require the maximum block size to be kept limited. The problem is that even if you don't create any transactions on the chain yourself, you still need to be able to keep watch the chain to keep track of what the bank is doing. For instance if you are trying to decide if you can trust the bank with a 1BTC deposit, and they've purchased a 1000BTC fidelity bond, you still need to be able to determine if all the unspent transaction outputs in the blockchain that the bank could spend, in addition to all the unspen transactions in the mempool, are less than the value of their fidelity bond. With 1MiB blocks that will be practical on smartphones with wireless internet connectivity without having to trust anyone else. With 1GiB blocks that just won't be true and you'll be forced to trust the relatively few nodes out there with the hardware to deal with the blockchain. You'll pay for it too. Potentially the various UTXO proposals will help, but they will need to be quite sophisticated; we'll need sums of all txout values by scriptPubKey and a fraud notice system for instance. All of this stuff is at best many months away from even beginning to be deployed on the network, and probably years away from getting to the point where it is truely trustworthy. Maybe it'll never become trustworthy, either because miners just don't bother, the code doesn't get written, or a flaw in the whole idea is found. We're just not going to know until these technologies are implemented and tested, and without them, large blocks force us into trusting miners blindly and make many valuable applications impossible. --=20 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org --bCsyhTFzCvuiizWE Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Digital signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJRHIaFAAoJEH+rEUJn5PoE7WsIAJE4Ri+25dvgtzL3wEDOiqSg gk3w5/td1T0n4MEJgrdzWkTsL7tQ2k0S02DWouZ1Y4lyktaRoBgl10tomPL8vFJ1 bVGO/rm0j3tSVlqxkmBpwvukBKOiYn1Me7+9+r3rjZHUWbFc+CFfDtHafrQsZYxt gexMRgU4IQtzYnOTg8tRb1O7reyh1lFF/eMsYQtpEUK10NtrFXihdE4e2hR88oEP lcElzkH6Sxutrw+ViCWLRYr7md8Y1cT125RTy/LAff+WOMfEq6Ucw1xe9etovQ+F Ut4N9PIQeNlIUubNsL81CQ6jecsSNXSfkI5RoPSUJtCMSQHjc3JUCI7yk183nfQ= =hmE1 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --bCsyhTFzCvuiizWE--