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
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
|
Received: from sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.192]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-4.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <gmaxwell@gmail.com>) id 1Tg58U-0002V5-M1
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Wed, 05 Dec 2012 02:54:58 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
designates 209.85.223.175 as permitted sender)
client-ip=209.85.223.175; envelope-from=gmaxwell@gmail.com;
helo=mail-ie0-f175.google.com;
Received: from mail-ie0-f175.google.com ([209.85.223.175])
by sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1Tg58T-0001xS-Qi
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Wed, 05 Dec 2012 02:54:58 +0000
Received: by mail-ie0-f175.google.com with SMTP id qd14so7552711ieb.34
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Tue, 04 Dec 2012 18:54:52 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.43.49.199 with SMTP id vb7mr13167114icb.6.1354676092583; Tue,
04 Dec 2012 18:54:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.64.171.73 with HTTP; Tue, 4 Dec 2012 18:54:52 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <50BEACAB.3070304@gmail.com>
References: <CANEZrP3=GdyTe+2=cp-ROOJ8_t=yCqO-7GQ4hA-3aksg46p+ww@mail.gmail.com>
<CAAS2fgQYV7aR86QOwvqMLpFZ+MAwSOSZvV6XuZdXvqjeYziRng@mail.gmail.com>
<CANEZrP3ZhNYrgQZT4qOohejs3yhgt0c_kT5zwAUVtPP1Q9f1Zg@mail.gmail.com>
<CAAS2fgSJhX4974BdWGdyJA13kHg7mTgHadC6UdhdUPu0bDDXFg@mail.gmail.com>
<CALf2ePw82wt08_G2RtUYEBxorjY1ryZ4r+W7atSzDLYMU+rGGQ@mail.gmail.com>
<CAAS2fgQewysOG7eOHQxmLup4oLJK=jY=q-_4qTL6yKQ855g3ew@mail.gmail.com>
<50BEACAB.3070304@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2012 21:54:52 -0500
Message-ID: <CAAS2fgRfUMYwOE51+eY5QE8nDNV==G1OBRzM1AuHjYmYwTFiow@mail.gmail.com>
From: Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell@gmail.com>
To: Alan Reiner <etotheipi@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Spam-Score: -1.6 (-)
X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net.
See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details.
-1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for
sender-domain
0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider
(gmaxwell[at]gmail.com)
-0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record
-0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from
author's domain
0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature,
not necessarily valid
-0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature
X-Headers-End: 1Tg58T-0001xS-Qi
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Roadmap to getting users onto SPV clients
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: <bitcoin-development.lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_name=bitcoin-development>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 05 Dec 2012 02:54:58 -0000
On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 9:08 PM, Alan Reiner <etotheipi@gmail.com> wrote:
> Our divergence is on two points (personal opinions):
>
> (1) I don't think there is any real risk to the centralization of the
> network by promoting a SPV (purely-consuming) node to brand-new users.
> In my opinion (but I'm not as familiar with the networking as you), as
> long as all full nodes are full-validation, the bottleneck will be
> computation and bandwidth, long before a constant 10k nodes would be
> insufficient to support propagating data through the network.
Not so=E2=80=94 a moderately fast multicore desktop machine can keep up wit=
h
the maximum possible validation rate of the Bitcoin network and the
bandwidth has a long term maximum rate of about 14kbit/sec=E2=80=94 though
you'll want at least ten times that for convergence stability and the
ability feed multiple peers.
Here are the worst blocks testnet3 (which has some intentionally
constructed maximum sized blocks),E31230 :
(with the new parallel validation code)
- Verify 2166 txins: 250.29ms (0.116ms/txin)
- Verify 3386 txins: 1454.25ms (0.429ms/txin)
- Verify 5801 txins: 575.46ms (0.099ms/txin)
- Verify 6314 txins: 625.05ms (0.099ms/txin)
Even the slowest one _validates_ at 400x realtime. (these measurements
are probably a bit noisy=E2=80=94 but the point is that its fast).
(the connecting is fast too, but thats obvious with such a small database)
Although I haven't tested leveldb+ultraprune with a really enormous
txout set or generally with sustained maximum load=E2=80=94 so there may be
other gaffs in the software that get exposed with sustained load, but
they'd all be correctable. Sounds like some interesting stuff to test
with on testnet fork that has the POW test disabled.
While syncing up a behind node can take a while=E2=80=94 keep in mind that
you're expecting to sync up weeks of network work in hours. Even
'slow' is quite fast.
> In fact,
> I was under the impression that "connectedness" was the real metric of
> concern (and resilience of that connectedness to large percentage of
> users disappearing suddenly). If that's true, above a certain number of
> nodes, the connectedness isn't really going to get any better (I know
> it's not really that simple, but I feel like it is up to 10x the current
> network size).
Thats not generally concern for me. There are a number of DOS attack
risks... But attacker linear DOS attacks aren't generally avoidable
and they don't persist.
Of the class of connectedness concerns I have is that a sybil attacker
could spin up enormous numbers of nodes and then use them to partition
large miners. So, e.g. find BitTaco's node(s) and the nodes for
miners covering 25% hashpower and get them into a separate partition
from the rest of the network. Then they give double spends to that
partition and use them to purchase an unlimited supply of digitally
delivered tacos=E2=80=94 allowing their captured miners to build an ill fat=
ed
fork=E2=80=94 and drop the partition once the goods are delivered.
But there is no amount of full nodes that removes this concern,
especially if you allow for attackers which have compromised ISPs.
It can be adequately addressed by a healthy darknet of private
authenticated peerings between miners and other likely targets. I've
also thrown out some ideas on using merged mined node IDs to make some
kinds of sybil attacks harder ... but it'll be interesting to see how
the deployment of ASICs influences the concentration of hashpower=E2=80=94 =
it
seems like there has already been a substantial move away from the
largest pools. Less hashpower consolidation makes attacks like this
less worrisome.
> (2) I think the current experience *is* really poor.
Yes, I said so specifically. But the fact that people are flapping
their lips here instead of testing the bitcoin-qt git master which is
an 1-2 order of magnitude improvement suggests that perhaps I'm wrong
about that. Certainly the dearth of people testing and making bug
reports suggests people don't actually care that much.
> You seem to
> suggest that the question for these new users is whether they will use
> full-node-or-lite-node, but I believe it will be a decision between
> lite-node-or-nothing-at-all (losing interest altogether).
No. The "question" that I'm concerned with is do we promote lite nodes
as equally good option=E2=80=94 even for high end systems=E2=80=94 remove t=
he
incentive for people to create, improve, and adopt more useful full
node software and forever degrade the security of the system.
> Waiting a day
> for the full node to synchronize, and then run into issues like
> blkindex.dat corruption when their system crashes for some unrelated
> reason and they have to resync for another day... they'll be gone in a
> heartbeat.
The current software patches plus parallelism can sync on a fast
system with luck network access (or a local copy of the data) in under
an hour.
This is no replacement for start as SPV, but nor are handicapped
client programs a replacement for making fully capable ones acceptably
performing.
> Users need to experience, as quickly and easily as possible, that they
> can move money across the world, without signing up for anything or
> paying any fees.
Making the all the software painless for users is a great goal=E2=80=94 and
one I share. I still maintain that it has nothing to do with
promoting less capable and secure software to users.
|
