Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F1FECCE7 for ; Tue, 8 Dec 2015 21:23:14 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-qg0-f41.google.com (mail-qg0-f41.google.com [209.85.192.41]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3C6F218F for ; Tue, 8 Dec 2015 21:23:14 +0000 (UTC) Received: by qgec40 with SMTP id c40so37636101qge.2 for ; Tue, 08 Dec 2015 13:23:13 -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=f5mjz8zWkd26amlOQGrov5cXkM2UlHodl3Ayl9Ooy4A=; b=0r8GvwsklWnw/SmEvXrkUWNEwj4/vuYOqpmcZEt+GbdV0BYP4AMTafvl7ivKuA1tDz PUTKlwzaTJWaPSA0rRFJx1iy/MmleEhuvT1JlMXBap8pbUiz9eItQVPm8x48hTGfn/lg qJ7tsNt9AA1N8vn8jL34nOeETUY5a/EtnZsl9FdRRlNv5jxBuoiBatNT54keztj99QWG rCVfOosrT8qc3BgtCjnevabAvr+ibkiKE7jg8keUlQ8WmopSu1lKryn2radC7SfkkQdE e5YlT6wq8JBjTx0OVHmYREVmdY0Bj2FuvB6ATR079jyRouyXvhFvU6CELZ+/FU3L9+WS 00LA== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.55.22.29 with SMTP id g29mr2566192qkh.100.1449609792566; Tue, 08 Dec 2015 13:23:12 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.140.101.112 with HTTP; Tue, 8 Dec 2015 13:23:12 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <56674280.3010003@gmail.com> References: <56674280.3010003@gmail.com> Date: Tue, 8 Dec 2015 16:23:12 -0500 Message-ID: From: Akiva Lichtner To: Patrick Strateman Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11479f50bfbc4705266994e6 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 21:24:25 +0000 Cc: Bitcoin Dev 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 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 08 Dec 2015 21:23:15 -0000 --001a11479f50bfbc4705266994e6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 It's true that miners would have to be prepared to work on any partition. I don't see where the number affects defeating double spending, what matters is the nonce in the block that keeps the next successful miner random. I expect that the number of miners would be ten times larger as well, so an attacker would have no advantage working on one partition. On Tue, Dec 8, 2015 at 3:50 PM, Patrick Strateman via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > Payment recipients would need to operate a daemon for each chain, thus > guaranteeing no scaling advantage. > > (There are other issues, but I believe that to be enough of a show stopper > not to continue). > > On 12/08/2015 08:27 AM, Akiva Lichtner via bitcoin-dev 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 listbitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.orghttps://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev > > > > _______________________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev > > --001a11479f50bfbc4705266994e6 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
It's true that miners would have to be prepared t= o work on any partition. I don't see where the number affects defeating= double spending, what matters is the nonce in the block that keeps the nex= t successful miner random.

I expect that the number of miners = would be ten times larger as well, so an attacker would have no advantage w= orking on one partition.

On Tue, Dec 8, 2015 at 3:50 PM, Patrick Strateman via bitc= oin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>= wrote:
=20 =20 =20
Payment recipients would need to operate a daemon for each chain, thus guaranteeing no scaling advantage.

(There are other issues, but I believe that to be enough of a show stopper not to continue).

On 12/08/2015 08:27 AM, Akiva Lichtner via bitcoin-dev 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 OOO= K AT MATH"



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


_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.= linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mail= man/listinfo/bitcoin-dev


--001a11479f50bfbc4705266994e6--