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
|
Return-Path: <gavinandresen@gmail.com>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6CA7589F
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Tue, 4 Aug 2015 13:12:39 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-la0-f47.google.com (mail-la0-f47.google.com
[209.85.215.47])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 567ED195
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Tue, 4 Aug 2015 13:12:38 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by labgo9 with SMTP id go9so6897145lab.3
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Tue, 04 Aug 2015 06:12:36 -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=8S4tO5pIWzH90rw2XSssKIB6ZkZty9J3tK7Dym5HJn4=;
b=kCYX+3ie9xWIFt41sQT+SPAqPgVphJIo/zkNIUC4+NuDN+/HPqqY/qJDdLqK9QXzKd
m7Mjq3Jv3jstfLgRwV9CiJocSPwIY5p9+IUffnIRk3VZrpu+0QtdBqeL50RRY+JlUr/w
jzWyGGwUtx2gk1B7pDMndAVZFIE2ckbfI98xgWFIG5822A60RMo0xpStrGEemQMlXuCK
dMrbNv+tuKJsYsP8wuNL3HXdPkOxtBKS4K0tB3EQn2XDuM/NrI7rpVshJSMLKOylF7jm
wP6KFJaTxI7s55p3d7ZircdkJhqz0eNGHg/IGWGFOCGn3/FvbfQGONrac9/0ncfL0N+/
P6aA==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.112.139.131 with SMTP id qy3mr3415321lbb.4.1438693956380;
Tue, 04 Aug 2015 06:12:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.25.143.195 with HTTP; Tue, 4 Aug 2015 06:12:36 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAPg+sBjvzxGAPvk6PEhuxWzg00+krY_+goZbCLTWngvrCVCKvA@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>
Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2015 09:12:36 -0400
Message-ID: <CABsx9T1rN9j8dkFgEqw6dMYfwht8Z=WEzEObZx11XQ59SF4EiQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Gavin Andresen <gavinandresen@gmail.com>
To: Pieter Wuille <pieter.wuille@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c33ffa35ed61051c7c0a6d
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 13:12:39 -0000
--001a11c33ffa35ed61051c7c0a6d
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
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?
As far as I can tell, nobody besides miners running old and/or buggy
software lost money due to outsourced mining validation (please correct me
if I'm wrong-- I'm looking forward to Greg's post-mortem). The operators of
bitcoin.org seem to have freaked out and pushed the panic button (with dire
warnings of not trusting transactions until 20 confirmations), but theymos
was well known for using an old, patched version of Core for
blockexplorer.com so maybe that's not surprising.
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.
I understand there are parts of the ecosystem you'd rather not see
specialized, like transaction selection / block assembly or validation. I
see it as a natural maturation. The only danger I see is if some unnatural
barriers to competition spring up.
> Full node count is at its historically lowest value in years, and
outsourcing of full validation keeps growing.
Both side effects of increasing specialization, in my opinion. Many
companies quite reasonably would rather hire somebody who specializes in
running nodes, keeping keys secure, etc rather than develop that expertise
themselves.
Again, not a problem UNLESS some unnatural barriers to competition spring
up.
> 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 understand you want to build an extremely decentralized system, where
everybody participating trusts nothing except the genesis block hash.
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.
And I think the current "demonstrably terrible" Bitcoin system is still
INCREDIBLY interesting.
--
--
Gavin Andresen
--001a11c33ffa35ed61051c7c0a6d
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<div dir=3D"ltr"><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><div class=3D"gmail_quote">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><div>And that is a problem...=
why?</div><div><br></div><div>As far as I can tell, nobody besides miners =
running old and/or buggy software lost money due to outsourced mining valid=
ation (please correct me if I'm wrong-- I'm looking forward to Greg=
's post-mortem). The operators of <a href=3D"http://bitcoin.org">bitcoi=
n.org</a> seem to have freaked out and pushed the panic button (with dire w=
arnings of not trusting transactions until 20 confirmations), but theymos w=
as well known for using an old, patched version of Core for <a href=3D"http=
://blockexplorer.com">blockexplorer.com</a> so maybe that's not surpris=
ing.</div><div><br></div><div><div>As Bitcoin grows, pieces of the ecosyste=
m will specialize. Satoshi's original code did everything: hashing, blo=
ck assembly, wallet, consensus, network. That is changing, and that is OK.<=
/div></div><div><br></div><div>I understand there are parts of the ecosyste=
m you'd rather not see specialized, like transaction selection / block =
assembly or validation. I see it as a natural maturation. The only danger I=
see is if some unnatural barriers to competition spring up.</div><div><br>=
</div><div>> Full node count is at its historically lowest value in year=
s, and outsourcing of full validation keeps growing.</div><div><br></div><d=
iv>Both side effects of increasing specialization, in my opinion. Many comp=
anies quite reasonably would rather hire somebody who specializes in runnin=
g nodes, keeping keys secure, etc rather than develop that expertise themse=
lves.</div><div><br></div><div>Again, not a problem UNLESS some unnatural b=
arriers to competition spring up.</div><div>=C2=A0<br></div><blockquote cla=
ss=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;pa=
dding-left:1ex">
<p dir=3D"ltr">I believe that if the above would have happened overnight, p=
eople would have cried wolf. But somehow it happened slow enough, and "=
;things kept working".</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 class=3D"HOEnZb"><font color=3D"#888888">
<p dir=3D"ltr"></p></font></span></blockquote></div>Why is what you, person=
ally, find interesting relevant?</div><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br></div>=
<div class=3D"gmail_extra">I understand you want to build an extremely dece=
ntralized system, where everybody participating trusts nothing except the g=
enesis block hash.</div><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br></div><div class=3D"=
gmail_extra">I think it is more interesting to build a system that works fo=
r hundreds of millions of people, with no central point of control and the =
opportunity for ANYBODY to participate at any level. Permission-less innova=
tion is what I find interesting.<br><br>And I think the current "demon=
strably terrible" Bitcoin system is still INCREDIBLY interesting.<br c=
lear=3D"all"><div><br></div>-- <br><div class=3D"gmail_signature">--<br>Gav=
in Andresen<br></div>
</div></div>
--001a11c33ffa35ed61051c7c0a6d--
|
