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 7D9CD147A for ; Sun, 10 Jun 2018 23:07:23 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-qt0-f173.google.com (mail-qt0-f173.google.com [209.85.216.173]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6CAAC762 for ; Sun, 10 Jun 2018 23:07:21 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-qt0-f173.google.com with SMTP id y20-v6so18696666qto.8 for ; Sun, 10 Jun 2018 16:07:21 -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=F4gyOt0UlKhKYKAMuiC1zcX7GtcCviMPsAvEsUL1c/k=; b=BfDdks37QizRaLNO2O28lXcxMj558kkI5I2zyTsvspZV/AfIih/GTAESJXsKh2XK7K OIv20F0j4Vy0BVaom+zC3H5XkShRaZ98jXlClYFrOQ4Ffyj8e65VxbVQllb3MsKaykKl zFyHkrKTPSjoBJoa/mTPfBvkRtToTSNwEZh/HbUQKEcqLYiowMN5G3DJ0lcZ19BnlQZc 82tvviIAZnfFUCUJJz4cebwzXwRnABi2caU2I5OuTVJ1mGr7VkvvTfQmM35nLpZPBELs Ya3STCu+mjMzQggIJSOsA3tOq3xPtqZhMCM3T+hUvjoL5C4zDYn66T9Jk4z7Y/uBtOdH RNtQ== 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=F4gyOt0UlKhKYKAMuiC1zcX7GtcCviMPsAvEsUL1c/k=; b=SFyDqcEP+ncJy+XllRwzN4CNMyScqzUsi3rXPJqRz0bpQ3KoO3jX6S3FLR+4q2IJdk rlUCMQSFDjOaykBgHlgQ2yKqspIC2QrMo9g8GrUx3/+UOwSqMtOWUsUyUkdmCKqjl2U1 hJXg6xQVmlgPf8Voy7wW1Cik5zovfm7pZimBG57X/KA8OCoNJ8GhRCJ30m68kRnY5iNS P7DKAtVMQa8le4ePMaPxN+lnJBqcDxBnMXhEzwFYV94IscPHKnkHv7uEwI31Oo+Ekgcc /cKz3V/SzLPvfW9cMjSEe0Bv5kuLmHvibp/adqVymgVthZHvf1ChryGimB78hkTdDtQ+ jcMQ== X-Gm-Message-State: APt69E3ZcwXLyzwlfY/NZfZhids8vRG4fx1gLbaiEb1bulgJjWT3uGrb gmw8jdaM9x3LM6/tSPZp0Pgg6EWZOks+4xaOwnBwdw== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ADUXVKI23umF2WChjKsQUWTNnW5VQ5pRVYTrhekQB5c/TuexApYFFuDVAw4mfue5sm+6hvhi8G8JwtWynGAtQIAkG+U= X-Received: by 2002:ac8:2836:: with SMTP id 51-v6mr14332101qtq.131.1528672040252; Sun, 10 Jun 2018 16:07:20 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: In-Reply-To: From: Jim Posen Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2018 16:07:07 -0700 Message-ID: To: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000f00327056e51b1ee" X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.0 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, FREEMAIL_FROM, HTML_MESSAGE, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE 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: Sun, 10 Jun 2018 23:15:36 +0000 Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] UHS: Full-node security without maintaining a full UTXO set 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: Sun, 10 Jun 2018 23:07:23 -0000 --000000000000f00327056e51b1ee Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I generally like the direction of this proposal in terms of allowing full nodes to run with a different storage/bandwidth tradeoff. Cory, were this implemented, would you expect Core to support both operating modes (full UTXO set and UHS) depending on user configuration, or would UHS be mandatory? Also, given that Bram Cohen's TXO bitfield proposal was an inspiration for this, could you comment on why the UHS is preferable to that approach? An alternative that goes even further in the direction of more bandwidth, less storage, would be for nodes to simply maintain a Merkle Mountain Range over all TXOs in order of creation and a spentness bitfield. Blocks could be requested with the prev outputs and a Merkle proof linking them into the MMR root. Since the Merkle proof is deterministic, it could be computed by archive nodes and miners and saved alongside the block data for relay. Another benefit of this is the TXO MMR root may be independently useful if committed into the coinbase transaction. On Thu, Jun 7, 2018 at 7:02 AM Sjors Provoost via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > eMMC storage, which low end devices often use, come in 2x increments. > Running a pruned full node on 8 GB is difficult if not impossible (the UT= XO > set peaked at 3.5 GB in January, but a full node stores additional stuff)= . > > However, 16 GB is only =E2=82=AC10 more expensive and presumably standard= by the > time this would be rolled out. > > On AWS every GB of SSD storage avoided saves $1 per year, not end of the > world stuff, but not negligible either. Outbound traffic costs $0.10 / GB > (ignoring free allowance), so when uploading 200 GB per year, the 5% woul= d > offset $1 of storage cost savings. > > The above seems marginal, probably not worth it unless there=E2=80=99s re= ally no > downside. > > What I find attractive about this proposal is the ability to squeeze more > out of limited RAM (typically only 1 or 2 GB on these low end devices). I= =E2=80=99d > have to test Cory=E2=80=99s branch to see if that actually matters in pra= ctice. > > It=E2=80=99s also useful to distinguish benefits during initial sync from= ongoing > operation. The former I=E2=80=99ve almost given up on for low end device= s (can > take weeks), in favor of doing it on a faster computer and copying the > result. The latter needs far less RAM, so perhaps this proposal doesn=E2= =80=99t > help much there, but that would be useful to measure. > > Did you try the recent SHA256 optimizations on your branch? > > Sjors > > > Op 17 mei 2018, om 18:56 heeft Gregory Maxwell via bitcoin-dev < > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> het volgende geschreven: > > > > On Wed, May 16, 2018 at 4:36 PM, Cory Fields via bitcoin-dev > > wrote: > >> Tl;dr: Rather than storing all unspent outputs, store their hashes. > > > > My initial thoughts are it's not _completely_ obvious to me that a 5% > > ongoing bandwidth increase is actually a win to get something like a > > 40% reduction in the size of a pruned node (and less than a 1% > > reduction in an archive node) primarily because I've not seen size of > > a pruned node cited as a usage limiting factor basically anywhere. I > > would assume it is a win but wouldn't be shocked to see a careful > > analysis that concluded it wasn't. > > > > But perhaps more interestingly, I think the overhead is not really 5%, > > but it's 5% measured in the context of the phenomenally inefficient tx > > mechanisms ( https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3D1377345.0 ). > > Napkin math on the size of a txn alone tells me it's more like a 25% > > increase if you just consider size of tx vs size of > > tx+scriptpubkeys,amounts. If I'm not missing something there, I think > > that would get in into a very clear not-win range. > > > > On the positive side is that it doesn't change the blockchain > > datastructure, so it's something implementations could do without > > marrying the network to it forever. > > > > _______________________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev > --000000000000f00327056e51b1ee Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I generally like the direction of this proposal in terms o= f allowing full nodes to run with a different storage/bandwidth tradeoff. C= ory, were this implemented, would you expect Core to support both operating= modes (full UTXO set and UHS) depending on user configuration, or would UH= S be mandatory?

Also, given that Bram Cohen's TXO bi= tfield proposal was an inspiration for this, could you comment on why the U= HS is preferable to that approach? An alternative that goes even further in= the direction of more bandwidth, less storage, would be for nodes to simpl= y maintain a Merkle Mountain Range over all TXOs in order of creation and a= spentness bitfield. Blocks could be requested with the prev outputs and a = Merkle proof linking them into the MMR root. Since the Merkle proof is dete= rministic, it could be computed by archive nodes and miners and saved along= side the block data for relay. Another benefit of this is the TXO MMR root = may be independently useful if committed into the coinbase transaction.

On Thu, Jun 7, 2018= at 7:02 AM Sjors Provoost via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> = wrote:
eMMC storage, which low end = devices often use, come in 2x increments. Running a pruned full node on 8 G= B is difficult if not impossible (the UTXO set peaked at 3.5 GB in January,= but a full node stores additional stuff).

However, 16 GB is only =E2=82=AC10 more expensive and presumably standard b= y the time this would be rolled out.

On AWS every GB of SSD storage avoided saves $1 per year, not end of the wo= rld stuff, but not negligible either. Outbound traffic costs $0.10 / GB (ig= noring free allowance), so when uploading 200 GB per year, the 5% would off= set $1 of storage cost savings.

The above seems marginal, probably not worth it unless there=E2=80=99s real= ly no downside.

What I find attractive about this proposal is the ability to squeeze more o= ut of limited RAM (typically only 1 or 2 GB on these low end devices). I=E2= =80=99d have to test Cory=E2=80=99s branch to see if that actually matters = in practice.

It=E2=80=99s also useful to distinguish benefits during initial sync from o= ngoing operation. The former I=E2=80=99ve almost given up on for=C2=A0 low = end devices (can take weeks), in favor of doing it on a faster computer and= copying the result. The latter needs far less RAM, so perhaps this proposa= l doesn=E2=80=99t help much there, but that would be useful to measure.

Did you try the recent SHA256 optimizations on your branch?

Sjors

> Op 17 mei 2018, om 18:56 heeft Gregory Maxwell via bitcoin-dev <bit= coin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> het volgende geschreven:
>
> On Wed, May 16, 2018 at 4:36 PM, Cory Fields via bitcoin-dev
> <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>> Tl;dr: Rather than storing all unspent outputs, store their hashes= .
>
> My initial thoughts are it's not _completely_ obvious to me that a= 5%
> ongoing bandwidth increase is actually a win to get something like a > 40% reduction in the size of a pruned node (and less than a 1%
> reduction in an archive node) primarily because I've not seen size= of
> a pruned node cited as a usage limiting factor basically anywhere. I > would assume it is a win but wouldn't be shocked to see a careful<= br> > analysis that concluded it wasn't.
>
> But perhaps more interestingly, I think the overhead is not really 5%,=
> but it's 5% measured in the context of the phenomenally inefficien= t tx
> mechanisms ( https://bitcointalk.org/index.p= hp?topic=3D1377345.0 ).
> Napkin math on the size of a txn alone tells me it's more like a 2= 5%
> increase if you just consider size of tx vs size of
> tx+scriptpubkeys,amounts.=C2=A0 If I'm not missing something there= , I think
> that would get in into a very clear not-win range.
>
> On the positive side is that it doesn't change the blockchain
> datastructure, so it's something implementations could do without<= br> > marrying the network to it forever.
>

_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
= bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mail= man/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
--000000000000f00327056e51b1ee--