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
|
Return-Path: <akiva.lichtner@gmail.com>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 55AA2DE2
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Wed, 9 Dec 2015 18:26:10 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-qg0-f45.google.com (mail-qg0-f45.google.com
[209.85.192.45])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 92114195
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Wed, 9 Dec 2015 18:26:09 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by qgec40 with SMTP id c40so92426330qge.2
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Wed, 09 Dec 2015 10:26:08 -0800 (PST)
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=sDPSIJjXZUFP2sfjTLoTGvP1RmweO6h79NAj82uq0Ck=;
b=DiblCvRRvWRb4diarWJ+W4lNkFzn7sqgeQZjBUHTyLGX9ix6k6+i0+mdbooXHf2EBQ
V09+KLMLFMEswnIyjwZZ7hbyvwJutZe/JqDkjZ0jLXBOiOsCJhr9XBuj57Q6YhFmX/Sf
jrbPFgWamHAXISPGV9G6ToMzpkJ+yzZOv00YFJbVqEaRcsYu9qFoOf2g+weCGwSPviXL
1cNX/Etwbr8ZVaSRSWLW3hvZgXEqJpm+ZskTFIJ2r18Rv50OqaeRC5OU0/AfZwaChaMk
GoPEDVGfRvWqeUy1NgoR+Lnvarko0tZRpCzP0Kd5OUq6k3FtJ1h6qqOIoLExVVEp3V0r
TLSQ==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.140.101.233 with SMTP id u96mr9353509qge.70.1449685566826;
Wed, 09 Dec 2015 10:26:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.140.101.112 with HTTP; Wed, 9 Dec 2015 10:26:06 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CAJmQggC1X5Lgt4xGoMtBZ_v3hC2GXcYaj2FngV2_7A=TDfSuEg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CABCnA7Wqz76m8qo5BYT41Z=hBH+fUfOc4xsFAGg=Niv7Jgkqsg@mail.gmail.com>
<CAJmQggC1X5Lgt4xGoMtBZ_v3hC2GXcYaj2FngV2_7A=TDfSuEg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 9 Dec 2015 18:26:06 +0000
Message-ID: <CABCnA7VAO2XKLwd4axaYcttUHzhvXXEvYrwg7XDKH9nfo1k7RA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Akiva Lichtner <akiva.lichtner@gmail.com>
To: Loi Luu <loi.luuthe@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
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
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 09 Dec 2015 18:42:14 +0000
Cc: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Scaling by Partitioning
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: Wed, 09 Dec 2015 18:26:10 -0000
Thanks for giving serious consideration to my post.
With regard to your question "if a transaction spends a "coin" that
ends in "1" and creates a new coin that ends in "1", which partition
should process the transaction?", I would answer that only one
partition is involved. In other words, there are N independent block
chains that never cross paths.
With regard to your question "what is the prior data needed to
validate that kind of TXs?" I do not understand what this means. If
you can dumb it down a bit that would be good because there could be
some interesting concern in this question.
Since partitions are completely segregated, there is no need for a
node to work on multiple partitions simultaneously. For attacks to be
defeated a node needs to be able to work on multiple partitions in
turn, not at the same time. The reason is because if the computing
power of the good-faith nodes is unbalanced this gives attackers an
unfair advantage.
On 12/9/15, Loi Luu via bitcoin-dev
<bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> Dear Akiva,
>
> Its Loi Luu, one of the authors of the SCP protocol (
> http://eprint.iacr.org/2015/1168.pdf ).
>
> Before SCP, we had been thinking hard about how to do sharding efficiently
> without degrading any security guarantee. A simple solution which splits
> the coins, or TXs in to several partitions will just not work. You have to
> answer more questions to have a good solutions. For example, I wonder in
> your proposal, if a transaction spends a "coin" that ends in "1" and
> creates a new coin that ends in "1", which partition should process the
> transaction? What is the prior data needed to validate that kind of TXs?
>
> The problem with other proposals, and probably yours as well, that we see
> is that the amount of data that you need to broadcast immediately to the
> network increases linearly with the number of TXs that the network can
> process. Thus, sharding does not bring any advantage than simply using
> other techniques to publish more blocks in one epoch (like Bitcoin-NG,
> Ghost). The whole point of using sharding/ partition is to localize
> the bandwidth used, and only broadcast only a minimal data to the network.
>
> Clearly we are able to localize the bandwidth used with our SCP protocol.
> The cost is that now recipients need to themselves verify whether a
> transaction is double spending. However, we think that it is a reasonable
> tradeoff, given the potential scalability that SCP can provides.
>
> Thanks,
> Loi Luu.
>
> On Wed, Dec 9, 2015 at 12:27 AM, Akiva Lichtner via bitcoin-dev <
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
>> Hello,
>>
>> I am seeking some expert feedback on an idea for scaling Bitcoin. As a
>> brief introduction: I work in the payment industry and I have twenty
>> years'
>> experience in development. I have some experience with process groups and
>> ordering protocols too. I think I understand Satoshi's paper but I admit
>> I
>> have not read the source code.
>>
>> The idea is to run more than one simultaneous chain, each chain defeating
>> double spending on only part of the coin. The coin would be partitioned
>> by
>> radix (or modulus, not sure what to call it.) For example in order to
>> multiply throughput by a factor of ten you could run ten parallel chains,
>> one would work on coin that ends in "0", one on coin that ends in "1",
>> and
>> so on up to "9".
>>
>> The number of chains could increase automatically over time based on the
>> moving average of transaction volume.
>>
>> Blocks would have to contain the number of the partition they belong to,
>> and miners would have to round-robin through partitions so that an
>> attacker
>> would not have an unfair advantage working on just one partition.
>>
>> I don't think there is much impact to miners, but clients would have to
>> send more than one message in order to spend money. Client messages will
>> need to enumerate coin using some sort of compression, to save space.
>> This
>> seems okay to me since often in computing client software does have to
>> break things up in equal parts (e.g. memory pages, file system blocks,)
>> and
>> the client software could hide the details.
>>
>> Best wishes for continued success to the project.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Akiva
>>
>> P.S. I found a funny anagram for SATOSHI NAKAMOTO: "NSA IS OOOK AT MATH"
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> bitcoin-dev mailing list
>> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>>
>>
>
|
