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 CC61AD58 for ; Fri, 1 Sep 2017 18:16:05 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-vk0-f54.google.com (mail-vk0-f54.google.com [209.85.213.54]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6BE2BF8 for ; Fri, 1 Sep 2017 18:16:05 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-vk0-f54.google.com with SMTP id x85so2697214vkx.5 for ; Fri, 01 Sep 2017 11:16:05 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=KSNpEug/ZkRFdTGhd6UWF1HjfVLU87jNcHaX15p4zAg=; b=L0xSSrFDjJhXlTMWWzNIeKxJYV4R8UnYHwXliE0aLRet0ve6We8sBOu1AjvOidtwYv T5rIVjyRI7HF80aUn+Osbhsl/fjWO/iI+INlhQXe+fGZcJshOgYzpgQqXiUT2jLyW+7r nozujLqwmUBdvThkFQP6aec56DPyXtSu/vpuR9ukT/Vrr3nYKrCF/7IKdCBtRQbnRKAS Y6qW+Fk984QovFp+KUSDHsz4fhdUryV+ipnfl04WMDrvRwkaSWlB8iZob6zSmwvaXvH9 SEwMXadfh4nUzaOSB4nS7mii6YyBhzESUEI8c3AgCWxuJcfjphgJskGhXGT9GdTmDKMZ oEVA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to; bh=KSNpEug/ZkRFdTGhd6UWF1HjfVLU87jNcHaX15p4zAg=; b=dc0K/Ju2lJlB1bdsTozv16fczw/mROoxb6vpNZGU2QC7Fpka4Ua8vmDxzsPJ3eVha8 jZZi1xQ1MuuPEUonAekfs2scw0lr6WlgVfa1v4o+j+CUA/qzSlivkIYxtRw5YCDy21Df 4uAVIO9m4iK64qWuPQcCAZ+ltVGYeaShc2hpIRd5yzaR+3aH3j5O6ORdYWHAnSJHqjr4 U21B7LNcVfdngO7iCoPKsiYwZyE+oYwBOMT93gTtxVy1QHZ3/oSzfbR4lxYX6k3AKvvd 33oYHiTkV3XMbX+Genj+BF4ONpxJU1W09k6ARPjdXfwBtglz5NvDHwVb7Pcwx/7wwT76 RtBg== X-Gm-Message-State: AHPjjUjtLO8nwTL3kLaFt8zcrWLvWHnrgfci0lkUOMzblkvJWg1dlWjT UhMfYaJx1fB6SrmJTErvxMYXpZ7JfKwn X-Google-Smtp-Source: ADKCNb6LN6WKHTUbPXNKjDAo/LHctz5tL+dXDYBjD1GsgA1LuokzP9Z6JYH98fsrCCGpLKx2JDB8Eqv4KxfBIW25l6A= X-Received: by 10.31.49.200 with SMTP id x191mr1385267vkx.127.1504289764487; Fri, 01 Sep 2017 11:16:04 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <1570222.Uh686LP1o4@strawberry> In-Reply-To: From: Cserveny Tamas Date: Fri, 01 Sep 2017 18:15:53 +0000 Message-ID: To: Lucas Clemente Vella , Tom Zander , Bitcoin Protocol Discussion Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a1143e9280d3671055824c182" X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.4 required=5.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, FREEMAIL_FROM, FREEMAIL_REPLY, HTML_MESSAGE, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE, RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM autolearn=disabled version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 01 Sep 2017 18:26:59 +0000 Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Horizontal scaling of blockchain X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 01 Sep 2017 18:16:05 -0000 --001a1143e9280d3671055824c182 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Yes. I meant the single thread as an analogy, if a block is found, other blocks are worthless. (more or less) Longest chain wins. My line of though was, that currently the only way to scale with the traffic (and lowering the fees) is increasing the block size (which is hard as I learned from recent events), or reducing the complexity which is less secure (most likely more controversial) Splitting the chain is effectively increasing the block size, but without the increased hashing and validation overhead. The usage growth seems to be more of exponential rather than linear. Sooner or later the block size will need to be 4 mb then 40 mb, then what is the real limit? Otherwise waiting times and thus the fees will just grow rapidly. I don't think that it is desirable. With splitting the ledger, the block size can remain 1-2 mb for long time, only new partitions needs to be added on a schedule. This would also make better use of the hashing capacity. Cheers, Tamas On Fri, Sep 1, 2017 at 7:15 PM Lucas Clemente Vella wrote: > > The current chain is effectively single threaded. >> >> This is not true, since xthin/compactblocks have been introduced we >> completely removed this bottle-neck. >> The transactions will be validated continuously, in parallel and not just >> when a block is found. >> > > If I understood correctly, OP was not talking about the process inside a > node being single threaded, but instead that the whole bitcoin distributed > system behaves as single threaded computation. OP seems to be describing a > system closer to what IOTA uses, by distributing among the miners the task > of validating the transactions. Although, without more specific details, it > is hard to judge the benefits. > > -- > Lucas Clemente Vella > lvella@gmail.com > --001a1143e9280d3671055824c182 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Yes. I meant the single thread as an analogy, if a block i= s found, other blocks are worthless. (more or less) Longest chain wins.
My line of though was, that currently the only way to scale= with the traffic (and lowering the fees) is increasing the block size (whi= ch is hard as I learned from recent events), or reducing the complexity whi= ch is less secure (most likely more controversial)

Splitting the chain is effectively increasing the block size, but without = the increased hashing and validation overhead.=C2=A0

The usage growth seems to be more of exponential rather than linear. Soo= ner or later the block size will need to be 4 mb then 40 mb, then what is t= he real limit? Otherwise waiting times and thus the fees will just grow rap= idly. I don't think that it is desirable.

With= splitting the ledger, the block size can remain 1-2 mb for long time, only= new partitions needs to be added on a schedule. This would also make bette= r use of the hashing capacity.

Cheers,

Tamas






On Fri, Sep 1, 2017 at 7:15 PM Lucas Clemente Vella <lvella@gmail.com> wr= ote:
> The current chain is effectively single threaded.

This is not true, since xthin/compactblocks have been introduced we<= br> completely removed this bottle-neck.
The transactions will be validated continuously, in parallel and not just when a block is found.

If= I understood correctly, OP was not talking about the process inside a node= being single threaded, but instead that the whole bitcoin distributed syst= em behaves as single threaded computation. OP seems to be describing a syst= em closer to what IOTA uses, by distributing among the miners the task of v= alidating the transactions. Although, without more specific details, it is = hard to judge the benefits.
=C2=A0
--
Lucas Clemente Vella
lvella@gmail.com
--001a1143e9280d3671055824c182--