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
|
Return-Path: <lf-lists@mattcorallo.com>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4125C1698
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 18 Sep 2015 20:11:55 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail.bluematt.me (mail.bluematt.me [192.241.179.72])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 789B8A9
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 18 Sep 2015 20:11:54 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from [172.17.0.1] (gw.vpn.bluematt.me [162.243.132.6])
by mail.bluematt.me (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A8BBE584D5;
Fri, 18 Sep 2015 20:11:51 +0000 (UTC)
To: Alex Morcos <morcos@gmail.com>,
Patrick Strateman <patrick.strateman@gmail.com>
References: <5D55F6EC-801B-4607-882F-B76CF57298B1@gmail.com>
<55FC6951.9010704@gmail.com>
<CAPWm=eWrnA9em725uR-56+r7uc752+C-6Ke-UcRXj__DBbwqYw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Matt Corallo <lf-lists@mattcorallo.com>
Message-ID: <55FC6FF5.7090400@mattcorallo.com>
Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2015 20:11:33 +0000
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/38.1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAPWm=eWrnA9em725uR-56+r7uc752+C-6Ke-UcRXj__DBbwqYw@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 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] Hash of UTXO set as consensus-critical
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, 18 Sep 2015 20:11:55 -0000
I believe the discussion here is on improving initial-sync time by
simply skipping initial-sync and getting a committed-to utxo set. This
is obviously a new security model in between SPV and full-node (I would
call it SPV with future validation). Still, I'm not convinced it buys us
anything, we really should just tweak Bitcoin Core to do spv mode at
startup and validate backwards in the background. I think this would
alleviate most of the concerns raised, given the chain growth is not
entirely unreasonable going forward.
On 09/18/15 20:07, Alex Morcos via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> I guess I always assumed that UTXO set commitments were an alternative
> security model (between SPV and full-node), not that they would cause
> the existing security model to be deprecated.
>
>
> On Fri, Sep 18, 2015 at 3:43 PM, Patrick Strateman via bitcoin-dev
> <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>> wrote:
>
> Full nodes using UTXO set commitments is a change to the bitcoin
> security model.
>
> Currently an attacker with >50% of the network hashrate can rewrite
> history.
>
> If full nodes rely on UTXO set commitments such an attacker could create
> an infinite number of bitcoins (as in many times more than the current
> 21 million bitcoin limit).
>
> Before we consider mechanisms for UTXO set commitments, we should
> seriously discuss whether the security model reduction is reasonable.
>
> On 09/18/2015 12:05 PM, Rune Kjær Svendsen via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> > Currently, when a new node wants to join the network, it needs to
> retrieve the entire blockchain history, starting from January 2009
> and up until now, in order to derive a UTXO set that it can verify
> new blocks/transactions against. With a blockchain size of 40GB and
> a UTXO size of around 1GB, the extra bandwidth required is
> significant, and will keep increasing indefinitely. If a newly mined
> block were to include the UTXO set hash of the chain up until the
> previous block — the hash of the UTXO set on top of which this block
> builds — then new nodes, who want to know whether a transaction is
> valid, would be able to acquire the UTXO set in a trustless manner,
> by only verifying proof-of-work headers, and knowing that a block
> with an invalid UTXO set hash would be rejected.
> >
> > I’m not talking about calculating a complicated tree structure
> from the UTXO set, which would put further burden on already
> burdened Bitcoin Core nodes. We simply include the hash of the
> current UTXO set in a newly created block, such that the
> transactions in the new block build *on top* of the UTXO set whose
> hash is specified. This actually alleviates Bitcoin Core nodes, as
> it will now become possible for nodes without the entire blockchain
> to answer SPV queries (by retrieving the UTXO set trustlessly and
> using this to answer queries). It also saves bandwidth for Bitcore
> Core nodes, who only need to send roughly 1GB of data, in order to
> synchronise a node, rather than 40GB+. I will continue to run a full
> Bitcoin Core node, saving the entire blockchain history, but it
> shouldn’t be a requirement to hold the entire transaction history in
> order to start verifying new transactions.
> >
> > As far as I can see, this also forces miners to actually maintain
> an UTXO set, rather than just build on top of the chain with the
> most proof-of-work. Producing a UTXO set and verifying a block
> against a chain is the same thing, so by including the hash of the
> UTXO set we force miners to verify the block that they want to build
> on top of.
> >
> > Am I missing something obvious, because as far as I can see, this
> solves the problem of quadratic time complexity for initial sync:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TgjrS-BPWDQ&t=2h02m12s
> >
> > The only added step to verifying a block is to hash the UTXO set.
> So it does require additional computation, but most modern CPUs have
> a SHA256 throughput of around 500 MB/s, which means it takes only
> two seconds to hash the UTXO set. And this can be improved further
> (GPUs can do 2-3 GB/s). A small sacrifice for the added ease of
> initial syncing, in my opinion.
> >
> > /Rune
> > _______________________________________________
> > bitcoin-dev mailing list
> > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
> > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>
|
