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
|
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 14FFECE4
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Tue, 8 Dec 2015 16:27:25 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-qg0-f44.google.com (mail-qg0-f44.google.com
[209.85.192.44])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 73BD8171
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Tue, 8 Dec 2015 16:27:24 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by qgeb1 with SMTP id b1so23747661qge.1
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Tue, 08 Dec 2015 08:27:23 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type;
bh=GJ5ug0pAqVvqEGwSBbY4268Q/AxlO0nIUwT7GwPOqyU=;
b=0VMZ5EzxEezq5HuHzqknFi3xKOi2NnC0Vk2i0oOb2bKiLpiamxzuUV355I24RDBIih
UsY3WtkqcK8nto2v+cuXsu32Sgn9BvzCAI3O3maGyXH2aZbQyd8VCB8pivztB7hELq1Y
mu8zk6JQhiI5QgychHutKNcSCgyeMKfLNn7t+rNULhbtZDf/uzsFHrV4x+ZgKq7Eag5o
afHD+W2mw+t041sPDFf8qrOMWIY7GJbZR4w+dCPBzvEBdZWaEsw0Iev7++TvIwlh8rGs
LwxdXo1RqGnZFUw60ADZZhRUD2uMuz1yfZJtdLsYTAYYOyi9Gob8MtnettXO1ns/6k2B
aCOw==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.140.250.70 with SMTP id v67mr6288219qhc.43.1449592038374;
Tue, 08 Dec 2015 08:27:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.140.101.112 with HTTP; Tue, 8 Dec 2015 08:27:18 -0800 (PST)
Date: Tue, 8 Dec 2015 11:27:18 -0500
Message-ID: <CABCnA7Wqz76m8qo5BYT41Z=hBH+fUfOc4xsFAGg=Niv7Jgkqsg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Akiva Lichtner <akiva.lichtner@gmail.com>
To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113a97e2846f50052665726b
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
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 08 Dec 2015 16:33:02 +0000
Subject: [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: Tue, 08 Dec 2015 16:27:25 -0000
--001a113a97e2846f50052665726b
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
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"
--001a113a97e2846f50052665726b
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<div dir=3D"ltr"><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div>Hello,<br><br></di=
v>I am seeking some expert feedback on an idea for scaling Bitcoin. As a br=
ief introduction: I work in the payment industry and I have twenty years=
9; experience in development. I have some experience with process groups an=
d ordering protocols too. I think I understand Satoshi's paper but I ad=
mit I have not read the source code.<br><br></div>The idea is to run more t=
han one simultaneous chain, each chain defeating double spending on only pa=
rt of the coin. The coin would be partitioned by radix (or modulus, not sur=
e 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".<br><br></div>The number of chains could increase automatical=
ly over time based on the moving average of transaction volume.<br><br></di=
v>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.<br></div=
><div><br></div><div>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. C=
lient messages will need to enumerate coin using some sort of compression, =
to save space. This seems okay to me since often in computing client softwa=
re does have to break things up in equal parts (e.g. memory pages, file sys=
tem blocks,) and the client software could hide the details.<br></div></div=
><div><br></div><div>Best wishes for continued success to the project.<br><=
/div><div><br></div>Regards,<br></div>Akiva<br><br></div>P.S. I found a fun=
ny anagram for SATOSHI NAKAMOTO: "NSA IS OOOK AT MATH"<br><br></d=
iv>
--001a113a97e2846f50052665726b--
|
