Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9165B15D0 for ; Sun, 20 Sep 2015 23:11:40 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-pa0-f41.google.com (mail-pa0-f41.google.com [209.85.220.41]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3D742238 for ; Sun, 20 Sep 2015 23:11:40 +0000 (UTC) Received: by padhy16 with SMTP id hy16so98936720pad.1 for ; Sun, 20 Sep 2015 16:11:40 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to:reply-to:user-agent :mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=K+6G/hStgCRoMMF0E2ey7O5QZ3wIyGcV4mRed/CVwlk=; b=qoyJLMw2Z7z518v6JwsWMUQuYkHSYmgOrWKkrMfjpVMsaYw6yM85gbUHAblkALlb0G LoMXKO8tnthu2Qoz8ux6LbjpTiLJJ4VPrra4ZpbggeSdq6pp6def4WyxJpDBtqual9wo QECb6eGWbzVnMcBZVVNsgPm2UwSGYu8r+saDxB3HmwZLJxgJTJAxRm1UoKWFP+00/+dK jJOrm/ne++rQTrP7GvptKTUxzJH8XNiZhjUG0jcTNhfWLCA7s4wjKT11PNQ3UOKrAKze KGF6nvgqf+I1CL3vDsQIGqunnIu4JvrKIN7ceSmofLnfPp4+buKuxCspkKZTmkMgWZCm 77sA== X-Received: by 10.68.248.102 with SMTP id yl6mr21521806pbc.66.1442790699966; Sun, 20 Sep 2015 16:11:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.108] (cpe-76-167-237-202.san.res.rr.com. [76.167.237.202]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id pt2sm20680770pbb.64.2015.09.20.16.11.39 (version=TLS1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128/128); Sun, 20 Sep 2015 16:11:39 -0700 (PDT) From: "Eric Lombrozo" To: "Milly Bitcoin" , bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org Date: Sun, 20 Sep 2015 23:11:33 +0000 Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <55FF3878.4060501@bitcoins.info> Reply-To: "Eric Lombrozo" User-Agent: eM_Client/6.0.23181.0 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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 Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Scaling Bitcoin conference micro-report 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: Sun, 20 Sep 2015 23:11:40 -0000 ------ Original Message ------ From: "Milly Bitcoin via bitcoin-dev"=20 To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org Sent: 9/20/2015 3:51:36 PM Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Scaling Bitcoin conference micro-report >>Some of us have also been actively working towards developing >>a more modular, layered architecture and better implementations that >>will afford greater decentralization in software development with less >>need for critical code reviews, less pushback from downstream=20 >>developers >>who must continuously rebase, a better process for building consensus=20 >>in >>the community, and simpler app migration. > >It sounds more efficient but it is not clear to me that it would change= =20 >the level of centralization of how the final decisions are made. > >One threat to Bintcoin involves incentive for companies to hire=20 >developers. The only reason is to change (or not change) Bitcoin Core=20 >so it is beneficial to their interests. I am not sure anything can be=20 >done about that risk but it needs to be understood and considered and=20 >not just ignored. Core development process and decentralized dev/community consensus=20 building (in particular for consensus-critical changes) is at the top of= =20 my priorities as issues right now...and one that I'd love to discuss=20 more in depth...but it probably deserves its own thread. The political=20 angle seems very difficult right now while the systems architecture=20 stuff seems a bit more tractable...and it seems that without=20 architectural changes it will be extremely hard to decentralize=20 development and easily bring large numbers of new developers in. > >>We need to increase the basic infrastructure nodes by a factor much >>larger than 2 or 3...more like 100 or 1000...and it's entirely doable >>with properly aligned incentives. > >I assume that would mean fees that hike transaction fees and make=20 >Bitcoin more expensive? > Not necessarily. Right now we already pay around 3,600 bitcoins a day in= =20 inflationary subsidies, very little of which goes to the majority of=20 critical infrastructure nodes and their operators. This is a problem=20 with the current protocol design, one we'll hopefully be able to fix. Having more core infrastructure nodes doesn't need to raise costs per=20 transaction - but it will most likely require abandoning the current=20 approach of having three basic node classes: miners (which tend towards=20 centralized pools), full nodes (which must validate each of everyone's=20 transaction and in return get paid nothing), and thin clients (which=20 essentially amount to parasitic nodes that do not contribute any=20 resources back to the network and must be subsidized).