path: root/17/035c55f68263e45fed6c4bb87ba609bcc2cf05

Return-Path: <elombrozo@gmail.com>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
	[172.17.192.35])
	by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8B4F583D
	for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
	Sun, 28 Jun 2015 04:54:12 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-pa0-f46.google.com (mail-pa0-f46.google.com
	[209.85.220.46])
	by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 06E67108
	for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
	Sun, 28 Jun 2015 04:54:12 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by pabvl15 with SMTP id vl15so88527225pab.1
	for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
	Sat, 27 Jun 2015 21:54:11 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
	h=subject:mime-version:content-type:from:in-reply-to:date:cc
	:message-id:references:to;
	bh=ShwGcjvSqKtSxEJ5ZAABI0EZM6oC7pyd7KdPofDypAc=;
	b=YE04eyIGT9kL6hXc+p8rVYUGfOJ5+t27N66Z7k+QObGQMTjHNuPvAF1GQFnSzhIDLm
	2ZhCJxaSBkM4CYaNIImRwPQJQAMESwnU32Plw3MabM4wkJvQ1HXHkuzjnAE9n3pP9a+d
	ikO/QnUCRVi1gTRs+NwPBNXAiowQEfoMTG968hYvPapXr0F8OeSMUi6liM7MZsx+5RH6
	qonxrYb9Ia5drHQlP3CIAewcGVwv5XF8NZScnVPQgpsCZGZ100YJ8/73STEZ6QiGSpzW
	Io5fW9aZoLkyTV2UBOIlpMzDjtx6eBEJ3m2ClzajwSiEs5JbBkLjIfrW8DapagWq65Rr
	TdLg==
X-Received: by 10.66.249.1 with SMTP id yq1mr18583043pac.3.1435467251805;
	Sat, 27 Jun 2015 21:54:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.102] (cpe-76-167-237-202.san.res.rr.com.
	[76.167.237.202]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id
	sc7sm26028262pbb.85.2015.06.27.21.54.05
	(version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128);
	Sat, 27 Jun 2015 21:54:10 -0700 (PDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2098\))
Content-Type: multipart/signed;
	boundary="Apple-Mail=_307D7424-2D2F-415E-9E7B-39D554554D9A";
	protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512
X-Pgp-Agent: GPGMail 2.5b6
From: Eric Lombrozo <elombrozo@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <558F583C.1000500@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 27 Jun 2015 21:54:04 -0700
Message-Id: <2A94BDF7-F265-4D36-B438-DC4F432E1C67@gmail.com>
References: <1164261435450448@web14h.yandex.ru> <558F583C.1000500@gmail.com>
To: Patrick Strateman <patrick.strateman@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.2098)
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,
	DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, FREEMAIL_FROM,
	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@lists.linuxfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Original Vision
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: Sun, 28 Jun 2015 04:54:12 -0000


--Apple-Mail=_307D7424-2D2F-415E-9E7B-39D554554D9A
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset=utf-8

Fraud proofs actually don=E2=80=99t need to be made super =
efficient=E2=80=A6but they do need to be secure, of course.

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.

- Eric Lombrozo

> 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
>=20
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev


--Apple-Mail=_307D7424-2D2F-415E-9E7B-39D554554D9A
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

iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJVj33sAAoJEJNAI64YFENUTL8P/2GvmmoRw3Bb7qVxSYy/yd3j
VZPgdHyS/16qNFhOzqiQJI/WS6DmlZuatcyxYH8xHy5hXHeaxfXmmZNP4jQaY/oo
XcJCAIQTUqGMFoJLCWA1MdgI2q2Z9y9kbtxNJoPqqb2+G6guUOfBxfe2PNIJytYu
lsY5zYq3VUgK11b66t3qrkZw7dwpMTOm8LU27BABQRArqfS0Iv3yT6+qPtomQJO7
6QyrRPA443ec1+evo1w+UmWCPHc5GroDsl2IUUezTRHFzXy3HlMlSBA1sWOll0cw
CXNEGJ0IRH8D8AwCE5pZjMnCDbEK/uqssBL5Y2MlfSqHlqNTsHIV1wywQAiwFDIO
OBOQ5p4kaS9jL0BlWm3ZtKEREMfjsJMmaWGmXjyAxUC8jnFvjxPJZLqK+nJaOkh0
9tIvuGJgZqKJzl95xduW2xw9Ek2xcPaSQaWltbFh7xgPE6B4nZa+rHVUGxvWCF8m
FNqf+TFgiBmuQozFqtJlljBR6UFAubCvJzPyK+sSAMlaKVkSYk2t7GaDG2KThYEe
sIS+giMnY0oxK4Wo0ZU2UZmJJQDh9ycQ7sgExsGmpxXbOE2DpgN/SKa+VXCt4ebQ
XgaudohkewTHFfTDD7i6nJOcfkHQf0kg3AaKkiSnAiOO9Xm1jVZhXZ6z0mJfcJb/
MHspq/jvrgruHTLN6p48
=Wa4c
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--Apple-Mail=_307D7424-2D2F-415E-9E7B-39D554554D9A--