Re: [bitcoin-dev] Scaling by Partitioning

[Akiva Lichtner <akiva.lichtner@gmail.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1792 bytes --]

Thanks for your response and links.

I think the difference is that those proposals all shard the mining work,
whereas what I wrote in my post shards the coin itself. In other words
different parts of the coin space are forever segregated, never ending up
in the same block. It's a big difference conceptually because I could spend
money and a fraction of it makes it into a block in ten minutes and the
rest two hours later.

And I think that's where the potential for the scalability comes in. I am
not really scaling Bitcoin's present requirements, I am relaxing the
requirements in a way that leaves the users and the miners happy, but that
could provoke resistance by the part of of all of us that doesn't want
digital cash as much as it wants to make history.

All the best,
Akiva

P.S. Thanks for pointing out that I hit "reply" instead of "reply all"
earlier ...

On Tue, Dec 8, 2015 at 11:45 AM, Bryan Bishop <kanzure@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Dec 8, 2015 at 10:27 AM, Akiva Lichtner via bitcoin-dev
> <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> > and miners would have to round-robin through partitions
>
> At first glance this proposal seems most similar to the sharding proposals:
>
> http://diyhpl.us/wiki/transcripts/scalingbitcoin/sharding-the-blockchain/
> https://github.com/vbuterin/scalability_paper/blob/master/scalability.pdf
>
> https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3u1m36/why_arent_we_as_a_community_talking_about/cxbamhn
> http://eprint.iacr.org/2015/1168.pdf (committee approach)
>
> > but clients would have to send more than one message in order to spend
> money
>
> Offloading work to the client for spends has in the past been a
> well-received concept, such as the linearized coin history idea.
>
> - Bryan
> http://heybryan.org/
> 1 512 203 0507
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2966 bytes --]