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
|
Return-Path: <elombrozo@gmail.com>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9165B15D0
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
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 <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sun, 20 Sep 2015 23:11:40 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by padhy16 with SMTP id hy16so98936720pad.1
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
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" <elombrozo@gmail.com>
To: "Milly Bitcoin" <milly@bitcoins.info>,
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
Date: Sun, 20 Sep 2015 23:11:33 +0000
Message-Id: <em36157ae1-7c4b-488f-88d6-5a8df930ef0f@platinum>
In-Reply-To: <55FF3878.4060501@bitcoins.info>
Reply-To: "Eric Lombrozo" <elombrozo@gmail.com>
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 <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: Sun, 20 Sep 2015 23:11:40 -0000
------ Original Message ------
From: "Milly Bitcoin via bitcoin-dev"=20
<bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
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).
|
