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 8E93C9FB for ; Sun, 5 Jul 2015 18:50:26 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-la0-f46.google.com (mail-la0-f46.google.com [209.85.215.46]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CE180A7 for ; Sun, 5 Jul 2015 18:50:25 +0000 (UTC) Received: by lagh6 with SMTP id h6so131458145lag.2 for ; Sun, 05 Jul 2015 11:50:23 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=KCiCyC68OwOQkVTdrRvLzm13D8Cz6ruSJscGjBt24ws=; b=K/ezVj1PcYuFwcLjoYEdqMio1hQH1pmHbDJRw9RssayLstnBy2enClIUnu0ObZR6O2 4qrnuIEz2SAltLjt/zoSIJcF29Ogt57/JgLdhvhT1yO1CBIZVyr39iK8o9c5NjLwF1Lp Un4X7Lyl7ZOnoCkQyl7FgkwIrLj5Ka9QJGHxUQllmiYpQ9I+r7XLrIulb0LvAeQ3PuD+ wt+9YX8IUtFbxT+kkLo1cg6lZcOBKtUTn3CGeJN5pRkz6jg6DGdJwVteSu1DweV8b4wQ hEo7rAPyn+N8Pe/qDG1PrbwWcV334ABchZ3b0fVQfJfhDstV/EqO1EEszfNvKiZUE+vz I9EQ== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.152.5.65 with SMTP id q1mr45406784laq.110.1436122223667; Sun, 05 Jul 2015 11:50:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.112.53.5 with HTTP; Sun, 5 Jul 2015 11:50:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.112.53.5 with HTTP; Sun, 5 Jul 2015 11:50:23 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Sun, 5 Jul 2015 11:50:23 -0700 Message-ID: From: Eric Lombrozo To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e013d1754fef2e9051a2542d8 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 Subject: [bitcoin-dev] Thoughts on Forks, Scalability, and other Bitcoin inconveniences. 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: Sun, 05 Jul 2015 18:50:26 -0000 --089e013d1754fef2e9051a2542d8 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Blockchain validation has become too expensive to properly secure the network as per our original security model. The level of validation required to comply with our security model has become completely impractical for most use cases. Block space is still cheap only because of block reward subsidy (which decreases exponentially with time). The economics are already completely jacked - larger blocks will only worsen this disparity. The only practical way for the network to function at present (and what has essentially ended up happening, if often tacitly) is by introducing trust, in validators, miners, relayers, explorer websites, online wallets, etc...which in and of itself wouldn't be the end of the world were it not for the fact that the raison d'etre of bitcoin is trustlessness - and the security model is very much based on this idea. Because of this, there's been a tendency to deny that bitcoin cannot presently scale without trust. This is horrible because our entire security model has gone out the window...and has been replaced with something that isn't specified at all! We don't really know the boundaries of our model, as the fork a couple of days ago demonstrated. Right now we're basically trusting a few devs and some mining pool operators that until now have been willing to cooperate for the benefit of the network. It is dangerous to assume this will continue perpetually. Even assuming the best intentions, an incident might occur that this cooperation cannot easily repair. We need to either solve the validation cost/bottleneck issue...or we need to construct a new security model that takes these trust assumptions into account. - Eric Lombrozo --089e013d1754fef2e9051a2542d8 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Blockchain validation has become too expensive to properly s= ecure the network as per our original security model. The level of validati= on required to comply with our security model has become completely impract= ical for most use cases. Block space is still cheap only because of block r= eward subsidy (which decreases exponentially with time). The economics are = already completely jacked - larger blocks will only worsen this disparity.<= /p>

The only practical way for the network to function at presen= t (and what has essentially ended up happening, if often tacitly) is by int= roducing trust, in validators, miners, relayers, explorer websites, online = wallets, etc...which in and of itself wouldn't be the end of the world = were it not for the fact that the raison d'etre of bitcoin is trustless= ness - and the security model is very much based on this idea. Because of t= his, there's been a tendency to deny that bitcoin cannot presently scal= e without trust. This is horrible because our entire security model has gon= e out the window...and has been replaced with something that isn't spec= ified at all!

We don't really know the boundaries of our model, as the= fork a couple of days ago demonstrated. Right now we're basically trus= ting a few devs and some mining pool operators that until now have been wil= ling to cooperate for the benefit of the network. It is dangerous to assume= this will continue perpetually. Even assuming the best intentions, an inci= dent might occur that this cooperation cannot easily repair.

We need to either solve the validation cost/bottleneck issue= ...or we need to construct a new security model that takes these trust assu= mptions into account.

- Eric Lombrozo

--089e013d1754fef2e9051a2542d8--