path: root/83/b08368f0e33088788069177185dbf2bd18497e

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 21FA4267
	for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
	Fri, 24 Jul 2015 20:28:33 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-ob0-f169.google.com (mail-ob0-f169.google.com
	[209.85.214.169])
	by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 67DE016E
	for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
	Fri, 24 Jul 2015 20:28:32 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by obnw1 with SMTP id w1so22671037obn.3
	for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
	Fri, 24 Jul 2015 13:28:31 -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=fM30VFHtZNG0Pw1lynLh6MLckuaj5grG2AqqXsd2SYE=;
	b=QbB+tWfb1vDJmQfMJu53+sTJ1XKdUOBH3xFGZ5Do+kp4bOXzUfAAfKb631hjjDfacw
	tmVTDhl5Nr61+p6SsszC0d5d98t5fCX3jWsS9S3ARhK/TB5KqlqqAbE4sdR5iJZTRIhs
	5XNqhDTW51hjNmgdKqNEJ41t+BuV+xrfBcJKR5iQvtnKiXWaeICqPaF6GTXR7D5Pp+As
	9EtHbXHyk3zaj09rHoFwsl0MKMYUFKuDTDrRMOTMNc6vQ0PTuvwwpHoDUvj/V1ATk6V3
	e+H+s39fxxnmV1pgg6ROw+rbaMHU+IaI3JjssXQgDNsad2NiAQtaB3PPJ5lM/isPx+/t
	0n+w==
X-Received: by 10.182.142.202 with SMTP id ry10mr16862052obb.27.1437769711827; 
	Fri, 24 Jul 2015 13:28:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.107] (cpe-76-167-237-202.san.res.rr.com.
	[76.167.237.202])
	by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id sx2sm5591203obc.0.2015.07.24.13.28.29
	(version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128);
	Fri, 24 Jul 2015 13:28:30 -0700 (PDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2098\))
Content-Type: multipart/signed;
	boundary="Apple-Mail=_5D6C91DA-5859-41C4-B90C-C7296B2EAD11";
	protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512
X-Pgp-Agent: GPGMail 2.5b6
From: Eric Lombrozo <elombrozo@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <20150724174039.GA25947@savin.petertodd.org>
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2015 13:28:28 -0700
Message-Id: <79149E7A-0357-448D-BE59-BF1FC46C33BA@gmail.com>
References: <CAGLBAhepXCaChSBsz49YNnLOOpiy9nsNYqNv0NH+G3W=17=2yA@mail.gmail.com>
	<trinity-44986062-638d-4c20-a1f8-56a7c7cec648-1437709050654@3capp-mailcom-bs10>
	<CA+w+GKS91NWB9ffysD4qEvAm+r1PswMePq6dirshbcZzpFg6Cg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CALqxMTFWfvc7LL5UgOMNnzNCxwbgyGRXgdV7wt1LYGGZ9h4XWw@mail.gmail.com>
	<20150724174039.GA25947@savin.petertodd.org>
To: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>
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, LOTS_OF_MONEY,
	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] Bitcoin Roadmap 2015,
	or "If We Do Nothing" Analysis
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: Fri, 24 Jul 2015 20:28:33 -0000


--Apple-Mail=_5D6C91DA-5859-41C4-B90C-C7296B2EAD11
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset=utf-8


> On Jul 24, 2015, at 10:40 AM, Peter Todd via bitcoin-dev =
<bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>=20
> On Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 07:09:13AM -0700, Adam Back via bitcoin-dev =
wrote:
>> (Claim of large bitcoin ecosystem companies without full nodes) this
>> says to me rather we have a need for education: I run a full node
>> myself (intermittently), just for my puny collection of bitcoins.  If
>> I ran a business with custody of client funds I'd wake up in a cold
>> sweat at night about the security and integrity of the companies full
>> nodes, and reconciliation of client funds against them.
>>=20
>> However I'm not sure the claim is accurate ($30m funding and no full
>> node) but to take the hypothetical that this pattern exists, security
>> people and architects at such companies must insist on the company
>> running their own full node to depend on and cross check from
>> otherwise they would be needlessly putting their client's funds at
>> risk.
>=20
> FWIW, blockchain.info is obviously *not* running a full node as their
> wallet was accepting invalid confirmations on transactions caused by =
the
> recent BIP66 related fork; blockchain.info has $30m in funding.
>=20
> Coinbase also was not running a full node not all that long ago, =
instead
> running a custom Ruby implementation that caused their service to go
> down whenever it forked. (and would have also accepted invalid
> confirmations) I believe right now they're running that implementation
> behind a full node however.
>=20
>> The crypto currency security standards document probably covers
>> requirement for fullnode somewhere
>> https://cryptoconsortium.github.io/CCSS/ - we need some kind of basic
>> minimum bar standard for companies to aim for and this seems like a
>> reasonable start!
>=20
> Actually I've been trying to get the CCSS standard to cover full =
nodes,
> and have been getting push-back:
>=20
> https://github.com/CryptoConsortium/CCSS/issues/15
>=20
> tl;dr: Running a full node is *not* required by the standard right now
> at any certification level.
>=20
> This is of course completely ridiculous... But I haven't had much much
> time to put into getting that changed so maybe we just need some =
better
> explanations to the others maintaining the standard. That said, if the
> standard stays that way, obviously I'm going to have to ask to have my
> name taken off it.

For the record, there=E2=80=99s pretty much unanimous agreement that =
running a full node should be a requirement at the higher levels of =
certification (if not the lower ones as well). I=E2=80=99m not sure =
exactly what pushback you=E2=80=99re referring to.


>> In terms of a constructive discussion, I think it's interesting to
>> talk about the root cause and solutions: decentralisation (more
>> economically dependent full nodes, lower miner policy =
centralisation),
>> more layer 2 work.  People interested in scaling, if they havent,
>> should go read the lightning paper, look at the github and =
participate
>> in protocol or code work.  I think realistically we can have this
>> running inside of a year.  That significantly changes the dynamic.
>> Similarly a significant part of mining centralisation is artificial
>> and work is underway that will improve that.
>=20
> I would point out that lack of understanding of how Bitcoin works, as
> well as a lack of understanding of security engineering in general, is
> probably a significant contributor to these problems. Furthermore
> Bitcoin and cryptocurrencies in general are still small enough that =
many
> forseeable low probability but high impact events haven't happened,
> making it difficult to explain to non-technical stakeholders why they
> should be listening to experts rather than charlatans and fools.
>=20
> After a few major centralization related failures have occured, we'll
> have an easier job here. Unfortunately there's also a good chance we
> only get one shot at this due to how easy it is to kill PoW systems at
> birth...
>=20
> --
> 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
> 000000000000000014438a428adfcf4d113a09b87e4a552a1608269ff137ef2d
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev


--Apple-Mail=_5D6C91DA-5859-41C4-B90C-C7296B2EAD11
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

iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJVsp/sAAoJEJNAI64YFENU00oP+wYSPYqHeIlGFwtlt155SDur
0D4v4NLRHOaUkrKR6/AdDkGIMehhyHqtR1lwH4Y6qYOSN/VOeapn5AWEGVXY2/CC
c5edmFwRal9zqvDDqkZGrP+jtjJ0StO5t0YU5E8hmyJ6aleQFrkz7XamGU/o2R0b
YCXDBC9qkWKLk3tAbr4Ayo6yafxm4U24rnMbTfO2VPgWPA6xt5OS9vefgoyc6ohu
77nlkDw8FsZ/xiX5JVJMNYVIAEJPLr/OfARBOoUeYvv3IUhQn5wBc8ARPhhMop/3
oW3O49WtqRZ1zpvf0Dd7o2bVFQQl9xfBZcz5rnmKzk8Y9atfGSGBOauLoxphF/BP
ZyWY5SRKwlwKaHJR9BisvWbxOaXNNAI5cqgL1zpF+AipkKLF27lvly2PTYktPPf6
VVvTfriTn8vgE8Fl3CiMl573n1FnljX1TKuIKxIy95JcEmfHWze5LdZMKgRbQtUq
CYVy9Lv7Fm6znrcRlNpUr355fIgw8f+jcAYjQJaAot571XT7hZji+ZyZDzwQTNH+
fMMUfwJx7FwZAWeCr/PNL9BMCcF9o8R1UxVdRproCVCOCVo5iRTcHMN4LAf/OK5m
bjqCXEAT5DfXPHx0JzfgFx77bh86b4na5PTDl/We8bAwFAkx4lleDSMjfH0tfw3u
asy1qMkS39ZoKjFpGr4A
=bHd2
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--Apple-Mail=_5D6C91DA-5859-41C4-B90C-C7296B2EAD11--