1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
|
Return-Path: <pieter.wuille@gmail.com>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 63C9A8E4
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Tue, 4 Aug 2015 13:54:48 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-ig0-f182.google.com (mail-ig0-f182.google.com
[209.85.213.182])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BFC1F1BF
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Tue, 4 Aug 2015 13:54:47 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by igk11 with SMTP id 11so93151428igk.1
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Tue, 04 Aug 2015 06:54:47 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to
:cc:content-type;
bh=wEbjTf9OB0WbBPkdn7u+0Cpw0+kkLqbUtiPSUWM8kSA=;
b=Ly3mqV/lYsmJK5eUKr0wpDS3TncCG23iIjpE4EKVt45tIzNWXR13YCahcu89cx2i8a
8uARYw/WoLEgf7+EplyKLmnQUNCgVIY3wuOEROXW1wic2DrKOGow8muEJKeqn9/QUO1V
itCMwCwHlaQG64g397UKHFJBOasVxLLsZtNdwL62yUGpp32uhKxLKpczNRDc2z3EnFlA
jK+IziMlbjn2vAZpaUzMvychpZk1NpSXNFVN+gRVLiLls2pmdZEqs9Kmi0ahl8C1Nj7l
rBf3HyWpLA4ZWNEmbKPFnk9axrm96oaFoxKwWQg9l2pMthttDvlOovr1osabJgRKcXDG
i03A==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.50.93.69 with SMTP id cs5mr28164799igb.4.1438696487247; Tue,
04 Aug 2015 06:54:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.36.77.201 with HTTP; Tue, 4 Aug 2015 06:54:47 -0700 (PDT)
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
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,
DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,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] Block size following technological growth
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: Tue, 04 Aug 2015 13:54:48 -0000
--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"><<a href=3D"mailto:gavinandresen@gmail.com" target=3D"_blank">g=
avinandresen@gmail.com</a>></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"=
><<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" target=3D"_bl=
ank">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a>></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'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'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 "permissionles=
s" 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 "things kept working&quo=
t;.</p>
<p dir=3D"ltr">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"?</p>
<p dir=3D"ltr">Don'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=
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'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" Bitcoin system is still INCREDIBLY interest=
ing.</div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I'm happy for you, the=
n.<br><br>-- <br></div><div>Pieter<br><br></div></div></div></div>
--089e01537ed80fe5e7051c7ca156--
|
