From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F123DBEF for ; Tue, 8 Dec 2015 20:49:37 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-pf0-f181.google.com (mail-pf0-f181.google.com [209.85.192.181]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7ECC48F for ; Tue, 8 Dec 2015 20:49:37 +0000 (UTC) Received: by pfbg73 with SMTP id g73so18024787pfb.1 for ; Tue, 08 Dec 2015 12:49:37 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:disposition-notification-to :date:user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-type; bh=K437B/QQy7qNLvZEn1rmQVAUM3hF7NtMaJscvQxIqtk=; b=qC5UcZz85KcEOxVlaEwbshOvddxFpy9HnCGMTbA5ENjwDTNHz60tABU0vpmLWXxqM6 Outb6FJzX6C4LGz0O8CkSXw3OXIYTKYcz62yb6TuJpR/575nsCKNwDemJvEX5K8k/mY8 1HhN9EHYniSB+DJVm+TXf/1+gL8xOgHBTiMUU3vw45AC/+B9TFEj1YOa2LDBh57MX50E K+U+lxYTvhPtC9ArJLZHcmutHHJhh6clzer+GltJcy8ro+yV6ZuSRbMrhq5v+zLk/O92 xBRmU3XbcPIPMq1tbS0HYUOxtVkd3d+bwq5057eW/rcKhagjvUXMctDPg218JDC3E8ab XYTg== X-Received: by 10.98.67.76 with SMTP id q73mr7821637pfa.73.1449607777230; Tue, 08 Dec 2015 12:49:37 -0800 (PST) Received: from [10.45.134.131] (strateman.ninja. [66.175.221.254]) by smtp.googlemail.com with ESMTPSA id m20sm6595189pfi.80.2015.12.08.12.49.36 for (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Tue, 08 Dec 2015 12:49:36 -0800 (PST) To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org References: From: Patrick Strateman Message-ID: <56674280.3010003@gmail.com> Date: Tue, 8 Dec 2015 12:50:08 -0800 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Icedove/38.4.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------070207020308020207040303" X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,HTML_MESSAGE,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 X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 08 Dec 2015 20:56:44 +0000 Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Scaling by Partitioning X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Development Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 08 Dec 2015 20:49:38 -0000 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------070207020308020207040303 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Payment recipients would need to operate a daemon for each chain, thus guaranteeing no scaling advantage. (There are other issues, but I believe that to be enough of a show stopper not to continue). On 12/08/2015 08:27 AM, Akiva Lichtner via bitcoin-dev wrote: > Hello, > > I am seeking some expert feedback on an idea for scaling Bitcoin. As a > brief introduction: I work in the payment industry and I have twenty > years' experience in development. I have some experience with process > groups and ordering protocols too. I think I understand Satoshi's > paper but I admit I have not read the source code. > > The idea is to run more than one simultaneous chain, each chain > defeating double spending on only part of the coin. The coin would be > partitioned by radix (or modulus, not sure what to call it.) For > example in order to multiply throughput by a factor of ten you could > run ten parallel chains, one would work on coin that ends in "0", one > on coin that ends in "1", and so on up to "9". > > The number of chains could increase automatically over time based on > the moving average of transaction volume. > > Blocks would have to contain the number of the partition they belong > to, and miners would have to round-robin through partitions so that an > attacker would not have an unfair advantage working on just one partition. > > I don't think there is much impact to miners, but clients would have > to send more than one message in order to spend money. Client messages > will need to enumerate coin using some sort of compression, to save > space. This seems okay to me since often in computing client software > does have to break things up in equal parts (e.g. memory pages, file > system blocks,) and the client software could hide the details. > > Best wishes for continued success to the project. > > Regards, > Akiva > > P.S. I found a funny anagram for SATOSHI NAKAMOTO: "NSA IS OOOK AT MATH" > > > > _______________________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev --------------070207020308020207040303 Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Payment recipients would need to operate a daemon for each chain, thus guaranteeing no scaling advantage.

(There are other issues, but I believe that to be enough of a show stopper not to continue).

On 12/08/2015 08:27 AM, Akiva Lichtner via bitcoin-dev wrote:
Hello,

I am seeking some expert feedback on an idea for scaling Bitcoin. As a brief introduction: I work in the payment industry and I have twenty years' experience in development. I have some experience with process groups and ordering protocols too. I think I understand Satoshi's paper but I admit I have not read the source code.

The idea is to run more than one simultaneous chain, each chain defeating double spending on only part of the coin. The coin would be partitioned by radix (or modulus, not sure what to call it.) For example in order to multiply throughput by a factor of ten you could run ten parallel chains, one would work on coin that ends in "0", one on coin that ends in "1", and so on up to "9".

The number of chains could increase automatically over time based on the moving average of transaction volume.

Blocks would have to contain the number of the partition they belong to, and miners would have to round-robin through partitions so that an attacker would not have an unfair advantage working on just one partition.

I don't think there is much impact to miners, but clients would have to send more than one message in order to spend money. Client messages will need to enumerate coin using some sort of compression, to save space. This seems okay to me since often in computing client software does have to break things up in equal parts (e.g. memory pages, file system blocks,) and the client software could hide the details.

Best wishes for continued success to the project.

Regards,
Akiva

P.S. I found a funny anagram for SATOSHI NAKAMOTO: "NSA IS OOOK AT MATH"



_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev

--------------070207020308020207040303--