Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2098\))
Content-Type: multipart/signed;
	boundary="Apple-Mail=_42796B73-7D6B-4457-95F7-FD48F3DFE8E1";
	protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512
From: Eric Lombrozo <elombrozo@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <558F8634.90904@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 27 Jun 2015 22:32:57 -0700
Message-Id: <38C2E2A1-EB6C-48EB-8FA1-7FAA97B3E911@gmail.com>
References: <1164261435450448@web14h.yandex.ru> <558F583C.1000500@gmail.com>
	<2A94BDF7-F265-4D36-B438-DC4F432E1C67@gmail.com>
	<558F8634.90904@gmail.com>
To: Patrick Strateman <patrick.strateman@gmail.com>
Cc: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Original Vision
Precedence: list


--Apple-Mail=_42796B73-7D6B-4457-95F7-FD48F3DFE8E1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset=utf-8

Just to clarify, SPV is fundamentally busted as it currently exists. =
I=E2=80=99m talking about potential optimizations for future protocols.

- Eric Lombrozo

> On Jun 27, 2015, at 10:29 PM, Patrick Strateman =
<patrick.strateman@gmail.com> wrote:
>=20
> Fraud proofs need to be at least more efficient than full node =
validation.
>=20
> Currently they are not.
>=20
> On 06/27/2015 09:54 PM, Eric Lombrozo wrote:
>> Fraud proofs actually don=E2=80=99t need to be made super =
efficient=E2=80=A6but they do need to be secure, of course.
>>=20
>> The trick is aligning incentives. In order for fraud proofs to be =
widely available there needs to be a market for them - there must be a =
way to buy one (because producing one is not free). What makes such a =
scheme actually practical is that very few of these fraud proofs ever =
need to actually be executed - it=E2=80=99s a classical Nimzowischian =
case of the threat being much stronger than the execution.
>>=20
>> - Eric Lombrozo
>>=20
>>> On Jun 27, 2015, at 7:13 PM, Patrick Strateman =
<patrick.strateman@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>=20
>>>> Further, it appears clear that the original author intended
>>> organizations operating full network nodes would provide =
connectivity to
>>> light clients and these light clients would make up the majority of =
the
>>> user base.
>>>=20
>>> Satoshi also believed that fraud proofs would be widely available =
and
>>> practical.
>>>=20
>>> If fraud proofs were practical SPV client security would be much =
closer
>>> to full node security than it is today.
>>>=20
>>> Unfortunately no design for fraud proofs which is both efficient and
>>> secure has been proposed; much less implemented and deployed.
>>>=20
>>> In building a system as new and innovative as bitcoin certain things
>>> will be wrong.
>>>=20
>>> The perception that SPV clients could be made nearly as secure as =
full
>>> nodes is one example of something that was wrong.
>>>=20
>>> On 06/27/2015 05:14 PM, Santino Napolitano wrote:
>>>> There is much heated debate going on right now and I know it can be =
very stressful but I'd like to point out that it is really amazing how =
passionately so many feel about this once very small project. Let's not =
forget there is something really special going on here and we're all =
part of it.
>>>>=20
>>>> The current debate has little to do with block size or hard-forks, =
IMO. It's about the nature of Bitcoin and what it means to people and =
how it will grow. I would like to take a moment to share my =
interpretation of the original author's intent based on everything I =
could find and read from this person. This is not to say their original =
vision is paramount-- or even that I got it completely correct but I =
think it might do us some good to think about.
>>>>=20
>>>> It seems as though the incentive conceived of for running a full =
network node was that it would enable mining. The proceeds from mining =
(new coins and transaction fees) would be the reward and provide a =
reason to continue operating these nodes. If fees are ever to be a =
sufficient reward and still allow for a practical and useful system the =
size of the blocks must grow significantly as must the user base. I'm =
not sure that this is really contested but I haven't exhaustively =
reviewed everyone's opinion so please excuse me if I have marginalized =
you. If you do contest that I would be interested in hearing it.
>>>>=20
>>>> Further, it appears clear that the original author intended =
organizations operating full network nodes would provide connectivity to =
light clients and these light clients would make up the majority of the =
user base. This is completely consistent with current trends in Internet =
consumption, e.g. tablets and phones are becoming more preferred to even =
owning a traditional computer. Having the system be entirely =
decentralized and trustless for every client does not appear to me to be =
the original design goal. Yes, the whitepaper speaks of the design goal =
as not having a need for a trusted third party but it does not say that =
some amount of trust won't be preferred by a majority of users. In fact, =
in the SPV section it implies some amount of localized trust is perhaps =
a necessary trade-off and maybe businesses should still run their own =
full network node if they want the stronger completely trustless =
guarantee. The global decentralized consensus appears meant to make the =
network
>>> r
>>>> esilient to a single government or other adversary's ability to =
shut the network down. If you really want to trust no one it is your =
option at a cost and should be possible by design. The author further =
gives evidence that they believe Moore's observation would keep the idea =
of running a full network node a practical one at global scale for =
perpetuity. It does not appear as if they intended for every individual =
to run one at home nor in their pocket.
>>>>=20
>>>> If my interpretation seems incorrect please do point it out. I hope =
this hasn't been too off-topic and distracting. The original author's =
engineering ingenuity is what gave me any interest in this project so =
re-visiting their design and scaling intentions might be helpful for us =
to move forward-- together.
>>>>=20
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> bitcoin-dev mailing list
>>>> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
>>>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>>>=20
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> bitcoin-dev mailing list
>>> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
>>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>=20
>=20
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev


--Apple-Mail=_42796B73-7D6B-4457-95F7-FD48F3DFE8E1
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-----
Comment: GPGTools - https://gpgtools.org
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=kL6J
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--Apple-Mail=_42796B73-7D6B-4457-95F7-FD48F3DFE8E1--