summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/e4/bc6644b038b249b2c2616e8a72f100159f7b5f
blob: 3d590995a31bbfb97a57cef01b416a5c039f5356 (plain)
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
Received: from sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.194]
	helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
	by sfs-ml-4.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
	(envelope-from <mh.in.england@gmail.com>) id 1Z4Y1s-00062Q-BF
	for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
	Mon, 15 Jun 2015 17:18:36 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
	designates 209.85.212.176 as permitted sender)
	client-ip=209.85.212.176; envelope-from=mh.in.england@gmail.com;
	helo=mail-wi0-f176.google.com; 
Received: from mail-wi0-f176.google.com ([209.85.212.176])
	by sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
	(Exim 4.76) id 1Z4Y1n-0005iB-8A
	for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
	Mon, 15 Jun 2015 17:18:36 +0000
Received: by wifx6 with SMTP id x6so85631602wif.0
	for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
	Mon, 15 Jun 2015 10:18:25 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.181.11.193 with SMTP id ek1mr33576811wid.15.1434388705165;
	Mon, 15 Jun 2015 10:18:25 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: mh.in.england@gmail.com
Received: by 10.28.14.196 with HTTP; Mon, 15 Jun 2015 10:18:25 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAPg+sBjrSed4r+8-d2RGBVhbzaXxX+o=qqw2u-2jpF2RUqmEmA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAL8tG==LG=xC_DzOaghbGGKab4=UVpGLQV7781pU4wg+WnFdMg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAPg+sBjqQ66f1Rmhi9HOBYP5BDjBHvTNPpUN-y3o-KX8dXBMhg@mail.gmail.com>
	<557D2571.601@gmail.com>
	<CAL8tG=kEv9AfQM+1Rv+tqBujFEjCp+BsjQ-1s7eJC-usogFFqw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAPg+sBjrSed4r+8-d2RGBVhbzaXxX+o=qqw2u-2jpF2RUqmEmA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2015 19:18:25 +0200
X-Google-Sender-Auth: Yw672EehJgsk1gXnopmDVsE4OGs
Message-ID: <CANEZrP1D0AN_iRobD2RYXHCCWhU7Vk6yZ35+ytsQ0zonSCG_HQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net>
To: Pieter Wuille <pieter.wuille@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f46d043bdeda3dc72d051891a5ff
X-Spam-Score: -0.5 (/)
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
	(mh.in.england[at]gmail.com)
	-0.0 SPF_PASS               SPF: sender matches SPF record
	1.0 HTML_MESSAGE           BODY: HTML included in message
	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: 1Z4Y1n-0005iB-8A
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Scaling Bitcoin with Subchains
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: Mon, 15 Jun 2015 17:18:36 -0000

--f46d043bdeda3dc72d051891a5ff
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

>
> It's simple: either you care about validation, and you must validate
> everything, or you don't, and you don't validate anything.
>
Pedantically: you could validate a random subset of all scripts, to give
yourself probabilistic verification rather than full vs SPV. If enough
people do it with a large enough subset the probability of a problem being
detected goes up a lot. You still pay the cost of the database updates.

But your main point is of course completely right, that side chains are not
a way to scale up.

--f46d043bdeda3dc72d051891a5ff
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><blo=
ckquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #c=
cc solid;padding-left:1ex"><p dir=3D"ltr">It&#39;s simple: either you care =
about validation, and you must validate everything, or you don&#39;t, and y=
ou don&#39;t validate anything.</p></blockquote><div>Pedantically: you coul=
d validate a random subset of all scripts, to give yourself probabilistic v=
erification rather than full vs SPV. If enough people do it with a large en=
ough subset the probability of a problem being detected goes up a lot. You =
still pay the cost of the database updates.</div><div><br></div><div>But yo=
ur main point is of course completely right, that side chains are not a way=
 to scale up.=C2=A0<br></div></div></div></div>

--f46d043bdeda3dc72d051891a5ff--