Sender: Wendell <wendel@314t.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1283)
Content-Type: multipart/signed;
	boundary="Apple-Mail=_CFC2C841-B982-44C7-9763-5494AB9A72ED";
	protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha1
From: Wendell <w@grabhive.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAPaL=UWH=3qj7AW-azrO9rJqRj3BKBff8-eETfF03po9kPJO4g@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2013 23:57:06 +0200
Message-Id: <D31E9305-773C-4760-BD15-AB5C2E63D723@grabhive.com>
References: <20130819001357.GA4281@savin>
	<CABsx9T3MFqmLchc1Uu20BhiVKsYWFtt0eneVSey846y2hdQ7Rg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAPaL=UWH=3qj7AW-azrO9rJqRj3BKBff8-eETfF03po9kPJO4g@mail.gmail.com>
To: John Dillon <john.dillon892@googlemail.com>
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Bloom io attack effectiveness
Precedence: list


--Apple-Mail=_CFC2C841-B982-44C7-9763-5494AB9A72ED
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset=us-ascii

John,

I for one support your rallying cry of decentralization.

If you are implying that even 10,000 full nodes seems far, far too few =
for a distributed system that may ultimately face a very well-connected =
and well-funded threat model, I agree with you completely. However, I =
took Gavin's statement to mean something like a factual statement about =
the load-bearing nature of that many nodes, rather than an actual target =
number for some future iteration of the network.

Partial UTXO sets sound like a great idea -- are they really being =
ignored? I am pretty new to the development process here, but I assumed =
(as with many open source projects) that ideation, debate and =
implementation take a while to churn. Has a prototype of that been =
developed already, are you implying that you funded something like that =
and it never got built? If there are some GitHub links that I missed, =
please send them over.

Maybe you should open that topic back up in its own thread, so we can =
bring it back into view?

-wendell

grabhive.com | twitter.com/grabhive | gpg: 6C0C9411

On Aug 19, 2013, at 4:53 AM, John Dillon wrote:

> So tell us how is your "vision" of 10,000 big beefy full nodes with =
SPV peers
> any different from the Electrum model? These days Electrum clients =
have block
> headers and verify that transactions have merkle paths to the block =
headers.
> The only difference I see is that SPV uses bloom filtering and =
Electrum can
> query by transaction. But Mike wants to add querying by transaction to =
full
> nodes anyway, and one of the purported advantages of this UTXO proof =
stuff is
> that you can query servers for UTXO's by address, so I see no =
difference at
> all. A patch to do bloom filtering on Electrum would be amusing to me.
>=20
> Here you have Peter talking about clever ways to actually get =
decentralization
> by having SPV peers donate back to the network with spare bandwidth, =
like
> relaying blocks, not to mention his partial UTXO set ideas, and you =
completely
> ignore that. But I guess that would raise ugly questions when people =
realize
> they can't now contribute back to Bitcoin, because the blocksize is a =
gigabyte
> of microtransactions... It may also raise ugly questions with =
regulators that
> may find the idea of "full node =3D=3D data chokepoint =3D=3D =
regulatory chokepoint" an
> attractive notion. Why are there not any competent people other than =
Peter who
> really have the guts to bring up these proposals? I've little luck =
getting
> proof-of-concepts built for money anyway. Maybe we just have a darth =
of smart
> competent people in this space.
>=20
> You do a good job of signaling your priorities Gavin. The payment =
protocol
> includes no notion that you may want to pay anyone but a SSL certified
> merchant. Yes I know the crypto can be upgraded, but it says volumes =
that you
> pushed for that first, without even the slightest token effort to =
allow
> individuals to participate in any way. Sad given you have made things =
*less*
> secure because there is no safe way to get money *into* my wallet with =
the
> payment protocol, but could have been.
>=20
> Tell me, when my decentralization pull-req is voted on, which way are =
you
> planning on voting?


--Apple-Mail=_CFC2C841-B982-44C7-9763-5494AB9A72ED
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename=signature.asc
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature;
	name=signature.asc
Content-Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.18 (Darwin)
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=RN3Q
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--Apple-Mail=_CFC2C841-B982-44C7-9763-5494AB9A72ED--