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 2C516F22 for ; Wed, 16 Dec 2015 20:38:32 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-ig0-f169.google.com (mail-ig0-f169.google.com [209.85.213.169]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1C78214D for ; Wed, 16 Dec 2015 20:38:31 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-ig0-f169.google.com with SMTP id to4so82972925igc.0 for ; Wed, 16 Dec 2015 12:38:31 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=AUYhr72AflF7eZuhigKgewhdZdIlWHtBz6V+E9ld0bs=; b=OjdpiMQ0pg0I9Nu+OkGHzWxlz9pkPb1Z3o8GqZ5cap5OAmWm4mLGCMG9ck3eY/VIY6 Gj0d2l92DHSwKZupQRvS+9KP4KuKrGmKvXV2r7HeTXIrKuxiUOPpOmRxHWnhP8cJvG1H j7DJB36DZGqG7XHsFVcevZ2t+kXjhy1CwhEKkBhsbJNTwKkTd4iS2+mQ4DuE2h0H+ZgD kSnIoMi77L7WgaBKYXL42e6lwuLfoc6LBdlY4+Dq89uSk4vOxmGOy+/aXTVS1yPFcrHw rI9Ag2dNwWopGX0QZS1I439tZZ3GUu2iETUoSuyNcrsMdT6D/cEclvES72bGnib90acS 4PCw== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.107.46.137 with SMTP id u9mr42611970iou.136.1450298310374; Wed, 16 Dec 2015 12:38:30 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.79.8.198 with HTTP; Wed, 16 Dec 2015 12:38:30 -0800 (PST) Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2015 15:38:30 -0500 Message-ID: From: Jeff Garzik To: Bitcoin development mailing list Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113abfae9bbd88052709e34d 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] Segregated Witness in the context of Scaling Bitcoin 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: Wed, 16 Dec 2015 20:38:32 -0000 --001a113abfae9bbd88052709e34d Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 1. Summary Segregated Witness (SegWitness, SW) is being presented in the context of Scaling Bitcoin. It has useful attributes, notably addressing a major malleability vector, but is not a short term scaling solution. 2. Definitions Import Fee Event, ECE, TFM, FFM from previous email. Older clients - Any software not upgraded to SW Newer clients - Upgraded, SW aware software Block size - refers to the core block economic resource limited by MAX_BLOCK_SIZE. Witness data (or extension block data) is excluded. Requires a hard fork to change. Core block - Current bitcoin block, with upper bound MAX_BLOCK_SIZE. Not changed by SW. Extended transaction - Newer, upgraded version of transaction data format. Extended block - Newer, upgraded version of block data format. EBS - Extended block size. Block size seen by newer clients. 3. Context of analysis One proposal presents SW *in lieu of* a hard fork block size increase. This email focuses directly on that. Useful features outside block size context, such as anti-malleability or fraud proof features, are not covered in depth. 4.1. Observations on data structure formats and views SW creates two *views* of each transaction and block. SW has blocks and extended blocks. Similarly, there exists transactions and extended transactions. This view is rendered to clients depending on compatibility level. Newer clients see extended blocks and extended transactions. Older clients see blocks (limit 1M), and do not see extended blocks. Older clients see upgraded transactions as unsigned, anyone-can-pay transactions. Each extended transaction exists in two states, one unsigned and one signed, each of which passes validation as a valid bitcoin transaction. 4.2. Observations on behavior of older transaction creation Transactions created by older clients will not use the extended transaction format. All data is stored the standard 1M block as today. 4.3. Observations on new block economic model SW complicates block economics by creating two separate, supply limited resources. The core block economic resource is heavily contended. Older clients use core blocks exclusively. Newer clients use core blocks more conservatively, storing as much data as possible in extended blocks. The extended block economic resource is less heavily contended, though that of course grows over time as clients upgrade. Because core blocks are more heavily contended, it is presumed that older clients will pay a higher fee than newer clients (subject to elasticity etc.). 5.1. Problem: Pace of roll-out will be slow - Whole Ecosystem must be considered. The current apparent proposal is to roll out Segregated Witness as a soft fork, and keep block size at 1M. The roll-out pace cannot simply be judged by soft fork speed - which is months at best. Analysis must the layers above: Updating bitcoin-core (JS) and bitcoinj (Java), and then the timelines to roll out those updates to apps, and then the timeline to update those apps to create extended transactions. Overall, wallet software and programmer libraries must be upgraded to make use of this new format, adding many more months (12+ in some stacks) to the roll out timeline. In the meantime, clients continue to contend entirely for core block space. 5.2. Problem: Hard fork to bigger block size Just Works(tm) with most software, unlike SW. A simple hard fork such as BIP 102 is automatically compatible with the vast range of today's ecosystem software. SW requires merchants to upgrade almost immediately, requires wallet and other peripheral software upgrades to make use of. Other updates are opt-in and occur more slowly. BIP 70 processors need some updates. The number of LOC that must change for BIP 102 is very small, and the problem domain well known, versus SW. 5.3. Problem: Due to pace, Fee Event not forestalled. Even presuming SW is merged into Bitcoin Core tomorrow, this does not address the risk of a Fee Event and associated Economic Change in the coming months. 5.4. Problem: More complex economic policy, new game theory, new bidding structure risks. Splitting blocks into two pieces, each with separate and distinct behaviors and resource values, creates *two fee markets.* Having two pricing strata within each block has certainly feasible - that is the current mining policy of (1) fee/KB followed by (2) priority/age. Valuable or not - e.g. incentivizing older clients to upgrade - the fact remains that SW creates a more-complex bidding structure by creating a second economic resource. *This is clearly a change to a new economic policy* with standard risks associated with that. Will that induce an Economic Change Event (see def last email)? *Unlikely*, due to slow rollout pace. 5.5. Problem: Current SW mining algorithm needs improvement Current SW block template maker does a reasonable job, but makes some naive assumptions about the fee market across an entire extended block. This is a mismatch with the economic reality (just described). 5.6. Problem: New, under-analyzed attack surfaces Less significant and fundamental but still worth noting. This is not a fundamental SW problem, but simply standard complexity risk factors: splitting the signatures away from transactions, and creating a new apparently-unsigned version of the transaction opens the possibility of some network attacks which cause some clients to degrade down from extended block to core block mode temporarily. There is a chance of a failure mode that fools older clients into thinking fraudulent data is valid (judgement: unlikely vis hashpower but not impossible) 6. Conclusions and recommendations It seems unlikely that SW provides scaling in the short term, and SW introduces new economics complexities. A "short term bump" hard fork block size increase addresses economic and ecosystem risks that SW does not. Bump + SW should proceed in parallel, independent tracks, as orthogonal issues. 7. Appendix - Other SW comments Hard forks provide much stronger validation, and ensure the network operates at a fully trustless level. SW hard fork is preferred, versus soft fork. Soft forking SW places a huge amount of trust on miners to validate transaction signatures, versus the rest of the network, as the network slowly upgrades to newer clients. An SW hard fork could also add several zero-filled placeholders in a merkle tree for future use. --001a113abfae9bbd88052709e34d Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

1. Summary

Segregated Witness (Seg= Witness, SW) is being presented in the context of Scaling Bitcoin.=C2=A0 It= has useful attributes, notably addressing a major malleability vector, but= is not a short term scaling solution.

2. Definitions

Import Fee Event, ECE, TFM, FFM from previou= s email.

Older clients - Any software not upgrad= ed to SW

Newer clients - Upgraded, SW aware soft= ware

Block size - refers to the core block econo= mic resource limited by MAX_BLOCK_SIZE.=C2=A0 Witness data (or extension bl= ock data) is excluded.=C2=A0 Requires a hard fork to change.

=
Core block - Current bitcoin block, with upper bound MAX_BLOCK= _SIZE.=C2=A0 Not changed by SW.

Extended trans= action - Newer, upgraded version of transaction data format.

=
Extended block - Newer, upgraded version of block data format.=

EBS - Extended block size.=C2=A0 Block size see= n by newer clients.

3. Context of ana= lysis

One proposal presents SW in lieu of=C2=A0a hard = fork block size increase.=C2=A0 This email focuses directly on that.
<= div>
Useful features outside block size context, such as an= ti-malleability or fraud proof features, are not covered in depth.

4.1.=C2=A0 Observations on data structure for= mats and views

SW creates two views=C2=A0of each transactio= n and block.=C2=A0 SW has blocks and extended blocks.=C2=A0 Similarly, ther= e exists transactions and extended transactions.

This view is render= ed to clients depending on compatibility level.=C2=A0 Newer clients see ext= ended blocks and extended transactions.=C2=A0 Older clients see blocks (lim= it 1M), and do not see extended blocks.=C2=A0 Older clients see upgraded tr= ansactions as unsigned, anyone-can-pay transactions.

Each extended t= ransaction exists in two states, one unsigned and one signed, each of which= passes validation as a valid bitcoin transaction.
4.2.=C2=A0 Observations on behavior of older transaction creation
Transactions created by older clients will not use the extended trans= action format.=C2=A0 All data is stored the standard 1M block as today.

4.3.=C2=A0 Observations on new block eco= nomic model

SW complicates block economics by creating two se= parate, supply limited resources.

The core block= economic resource is heavily contended.=C2=A0 Older clients use core block= s exclusively.=C2=A0 Newer clients use core blocks more conservatively, sto= ring as much data as possible in extended blocks.

The extended block economic resource is less heavily contended, though th= at of course grows over time as clients upgrade.

Beca= use core blocks are more heavily contended, it is presumed that older clien= ts will pay a higher fee than newer clients (subject to elasticity etc.).

5.1.=C2=A0 Problem: =C2=A0Pace of roll-out wi= ll be slow - Whole Ecosystem must be considered.

The current appare= nt proposal is to roll out Segregated Witness as a soft fork, and keep bloc= k size at 1M.

The roll-out pace cannot simply be= judged by soft fork speed - which is months at best.=C2=A0 Analysis must t= he layers above: =C2=A0Updating bitcoin-core (JS) and bitcoinj (Java), and = then the timelines to roll out those updates to apps, and then the timeline= to update those apps to create extended transactions.

=
A simple hard fork such as BIP 102 = is automatically compatible with the vast range of today's ecosystem so= ftware.

SW requires merchants to upgrade almost = immediately, requires wallet and other peripheral software upgrades to make= use of.=C2=A0 Other updates are opt-in and occur more slowly.=C2=A0 BIP 70= processors need some updates.

The number of LOC= that must change for BIP 102 is very small, and the problem domain well kn= own, versus SW.

5.3.=C2=A0 Problem: =C2=A0= Due to pace, Fee Event not forestalled.

Even presuming SW is merged int= o Bitcoin Core tomorrow, this does not address the risk of a Fee Event and = associated Economic Change in the coming months.

=
5.4.=C2=A0 Problem: =C2=A0 More complex economic policy, new gam= e theory, new bidding structure risks.

Splitting b= locks into two pieces, each with separate and distinct behaviors and resour= ce values, creates two fee markets.

Having two pricing strata within each block has certainly feasible = - that is the current mining policy of (1) fee/KB followed by (2) priority/= age.

Valuable or not - e.g. incentivizing older = clients to upgrade - the fact remains that SW creates a more-complex biddin= g structure by creating a second economic resource.

This is clearly a change to a new economic policy=C2=A0wi= th standard risks associated with that.=C2=A0 Will that induce an Economic = Change Event (see def last email)? =C2=A0Unlikely, due to slow rollo= ut pace.

5.5.=C2=A0 Problem: =C2=A0Current SW mining = algorithm needs improvement

Current SW block template maker does a = reasonable job, but makes some naive assumptions about the fee market acros= s an entire extended block.=C2=A0 This is a mismatch with the economic real= ity (just described).

5.6. =C2=A0 Problem:= =C2=A0New, under-analyzed attack surfaces

Less significant and fu= ndamental but still worth noting.

This is not a = fundamental SW problem, but simply standard complexity risk factors: =C2=A0= splitting the signatures away from transactions, and creating a new apparen= tly-unsigned version of the transaction opens the possibility of some netwo= rk attacks which cause some clients to degrade down from extended block to = core block mode temporarily.

There is a chance o= f a failure mode that fools older clients into thinking fraudulent data is = valid (judgement: unlikely vis hashpower but not impossible)

=
6. Conclusions and recommendations

It seems unli= kely that SW provides scaling in the short term, and SW introduces new econ= omics complexities.

A "short term bump"= ; hard fork block size increase addresses economic and ecosystem risks that= SW does not.

Bump + SW should proceed in parall= el, independent tracks, as orthogonal issues.

7. Appendix - Other SW comments

Hard forks provide much stronger val= idation, and ensure the network operates at a fully trustless level.
SW hard fork is preferred, versus soft fork.=C2=A0 Soft forking SW places = a huge amount of trust on miners to validate transaction signatures, versus= the rest of the network, as the network slowly upgrades to newer clients.<= br>
An SW hard fork could also add several zero-filled placeholders in= a merkle tree for future use.



<= blockquote style=3D"margin:0 0 0 40px;border:none;padding:0px">








<= div>
--001a113abfae9bbd88052709e34d--