Re: [Bitcoin-development] comments on BIP 100

[Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3928 bytes --]

On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 12:23:44AM +0200, Mike Hearn wrote:
> >
> > One thing that is concerning is that few in industry seem inclined to
> > take any development initiatives or even integrate a library.
> 
> 
> Um, you mean except all the people who have built more scalable wallets
> over the past few years, which is the only reason anyone can even use
> Bitcoin from their phone?
>
> Or maybe you mean initiatives like Lightning ....
> except StrawPay already developed something similar to the Lightning
> network (complete with a working GUI wallet) and were ignored by
> Blockstream as you prefer to write your own from scratch?
>
> Sure, people in the industry take development initiatives. That doesn't
> mean their work will be recognised on this mailing list.

StrawPay hasn't published any details of their work publicly; if they
wanted credit on the mailing list they should have done that.

I couldn't even find any screenshots of that GUI wallet when I learned
what they were doing; I went to the trouble of reaching out to them
recently because I have multiple clients with a need for their
technology. I'm sure we all would have appreciated and welcomed them
taking the time to let us know what they were doing; it would have saved
me personally a lot of time; their lack of recognition on this mailing
list is both unfortunate, and a product of their actions alone.

In any case, StrawPay and Lightning are complementary projects: StrawPay
has limited functionality in exchange for faster deployment; Lightning
has significantly more functionality in exchange for a longer deployment
schedule. Both projects can and should be developed in parallel.
Equally, note efforts like my own CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY, which will be
part of StrawPay in due time.

> > But it will be helpful if we expose companies to the back-pressure
> > actually implied by an O(n^2) scaling protocol and don't just immediately
> > increase the block-size to levels that are dangerous for decentralisation
> > security
> 
> 
> Bitcoin does not have n-squared scaling. I really don't get where this idea
> comes from. Computational complexity for the entire network is O(nm) where
> n=transactions and m=fully validating nodes. There is no fixed
> relationships between those two variables.

Note for instance how we're discussing what standards we need in the
CryptoCurrency Security Standard for requirements for compliant
companies to run full nodes for transaction verification; failure to run
a full node will be considered non-compliant in much the same way that
failure to secure your private keys is non-compliance. Pedantically, if
you assume a diverse, decentralized ecosystem, these security standards
by themselves do create fixed linear relationships between those
variables, giving O(n^2) scaling.

https://github.com/CryptoConsortium/CCSS/issues/15

> "Exposing the companies to back-pressure" sounds quite nice and gentle. Let
> me rephrase it to be equivalent but perhaps more direct: you mean "breaking
> the current software ecosystem to force people into a new, fictional system
> that bears little resemblance to the Bitcoin we use today, whether they
> want that or not".

Equally, not running full nodes bears little resemblance to the Bitcoin
we use today. Either way, something must change for the number of
Bitcoin users to grow.

> As nothing that has been proposed so far (Lightning, merge mined chains,
> extension blocks etc) has much chance of actual deployment any time soon,
> that leaves raising the block size limit as the only possible path left.
> Which is why there will soon be a fork that does it.

I'm genuinely looking forward to a concrete fork proposal. Any ETA on
when the blocksize increase code will go in Bitcoin XT?

-- 
'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
0000000000000000127ab1d576dc851f374424f1269c4700ccaba2c42d97e778

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 650 bytes --]