MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CABr1YTfEEXoQJ4SUtrUki9_WetWbGV7TEB+3usJGQqu-P55kSA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CABr1YTf72fdQmTDEHAWVKqvTCLSpJZyiiw4g3ifrY8x5RZ=shQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CABr1YTfwcOQuNyqO57=jdghTnqt56u6pBvK6+dWbED-4OMh+Ug@mail.gmail.com>
	<CABr1YTfEEXoQJ4SUtrUki9_WetWbGV7TEB+3usJGQqu-P55kSA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 5 Jul 2015 11:50:23 -0700
Message-ID: <CABr1YTfiCx6igG9s6NbdD7pWLuoYSJ1QFcX_RnhbdtX5r=Z5Xg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Eric Lombrozo <elombrozo@gmail.com>
To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e013d1754fef2e9051a2542d8
Subject: [bitcoin-dev] Thoughts on Forks, Scalability,
	and other Bitcoin inconveniences.
Precedence: list

--089e013d1754fef2e9051a2542d8
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

Blockchain validation has become too expensive to properly secure the
network as per our original security model. The level of validation
required to comply with our security model has become completely
impractical for most use cases. Block space is still cheap only because of
block reward subsidy (which decreases exponentially with time). The
economics are already completely jacked - larger blocks will only worsen
this disparity.

The only practical way for the network to function at present (and what has
essentially ended up happening, if often tacitly) is by introducing trust,
in validators, miners, relayers, explorer websites, online wallets,
etc...which in and of itself wouldn't be the end of the world were it not
for the fact that the raison d'etre of bitcoin is trustlessness - and the
security model is very much based on this idea. Because of this, there's
been a tendency to deny that bitcoin cannot presently scale without trust.
This is horrible because our entire security model has gone out the
window...and has been replaced with something that isn't specified at all!

We don't really know the boundaries of our model, as the fork a couple of
days ago demonstrated. Right now we're basically trusting a few devs and
some mining pool operators that until now have been willing to cooperate
for the benefit of the network. It is dangerous to assume this will
continue perpetually. Even assuming the best intentions, an incident might
occur that this cooperation cannot easily repair.

We need to either solve the validation cost/bottleneck issue...or we need
to construct a new security model that takes these trust assumptions into
account.

- Eric Lombrozo

--089e013d1754fef2e9051a2542d8
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<p dir=3D"ltr">Blockchain validation has become too expensive to properly s=
ecure the network as per our original security model. The level of validati=
on required to comply with our security model has become completely impract=
ical for most use cases. Block space is still cheap only because of block r=
eward subsidy (which decreases exponentially with time). The economics are =
already completely jacked - larger blocks will only worsen this disparity.<=
/p>
<p dir=3D"ltr">The only practical way for the network to function at presen=
t (and what has essentially ended up happening, if often tacitly) is by int=
roducing trust, in validators, miners, relayers, explorer websites, online =
wallets, etc...which in and of itself wouldn&#39;t be the end of the world =
were it not for the fact that the raison d&#39;etre of bitcoin is trustless=
ness - and the security model is very much based on this idea. Because of t=
his, there&#39;s been a tendency to deny that bitcoin cannot presently scal=
e without trust. This is horrible because our entire security model has gon=
e out the window...and has been replaced with something that isn&#39;t spec=
ified at all!</p>
<p dir=3D"ltr">We don&#39;t really know the boundaries of our model, as the=
 fork a couple of days ago demonstrated. Right now we&#39;re basically trus=
ting a few devs and some mining pool operators that until now have been wil=
ling to cooperate for the benefit of the network. It is dangerous to assume=
 this will continue perpetually. Even assuming the best intentions, an inci=
dent might occur that this cooperation cannot easily repair.</p>
<p dir=3D"ltr">We need to either solve the validation cost/bottleneck issue=
...or we need to construct a new security model that takes these trust assu=
mptions into account.</p>
<p dir=3D"ltr">- Eric Lombrozo</p>

--089e013d1754fef2e9051a2542d8--