public inbox for bitcoindev@googlegroups.com
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Ryan Butler <rryananizer@gmail.com>
To: Gregory Maxwell <greg@xiph.org>
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Capacity increases for the Bitcoin system.
Date: Tue, 8 Dec 2015 22:44:09 -0600	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAF_2MyUJMdJyh7FKq6UYCtwJZQ59i-pnWT_tFEK5EQx65iwHDQ@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAAS2fgSxpSat3VOje3-C4zgaRUVJVx-eRJbSYJqhvfR5SvCDwA@mail.gmail.com>

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3873 bytes --]

>I agree, but nothing I have advocated creates significant technical
>debt. It is also a bad engineering practice to combine functional
>changes (especially ones with poorly understood system wide
>consequences and low user autonomy) with structural tidying.

I don't think I would classify placing things in consensus critical code
when it doesn't need to be as "structural tidying".  Gavin said "pile on"
which you took as implying "a lot", he can correct me, but I believe he
meant "add to".

> (especially ones with poorly understood system wide consequences and low
user autonomy)

This implies there you have no confidence in the unit tests and functional
testing around Bitcoin and should not be a reason to avoid refactoring.
It's more a reason to increase testing so that you will have confidence
when you refactor.

Also I don't think Martin Fowler would agree with you...

"Refactoring should be done in conjunction with adding new features."

"Always leave the code better than when you found it."

"Often you start working on adding new functionality and you realize the
existing structures don't play well with what you're about to do.

In this situation it usually pays to begin by refactoring the existing code
into the shape you now know is the right shape for what you're about to do."

-Martin Fowler








On Tue, Dec 8, 2015 at 7:31 PM, Gregory Maxwell via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:

> On Wed, Dec 9, 2015 at 1:09 AM, Gavin Andresen <gavinandresen@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > Create a 1-megabyte transaction, with all of it's inputs spending
> > segwitness-spending SIGHASH_ALL inputs.
> >
> > Because the segwitness inputs are smaller in the block, you can fit more
> of
> > them into 1 megabyte. Each will hash very close to one megabyte of data.
>
> Witness size comes out of the 1MB at a factor of 0.25. It is not
> possible to make a block which has signatures with the full 1MB of
> data under the sighash while also having signatures externally.  So
> every byte moved into the witness and thus only counted as 25% comes
> out of the data being hashed and is hashed nInputs (*checksigs) less
> times.
>
> > I think it is a huge mistake not to "design for success" (see
> > http://gavinandresen.ninja/designing-for-success ).
>
> We are designing for success; including the success of being able to
> adapt and cope with uncertainty-- which is the most critical kind of
> success we can have in a world where nothing is and can be
> predictable.
>
> > I think it is a huge mistake to pile on technical debt in
> consensus-critical
> > code. I think we should be working harder to make things simpler, not
> more
> > complex, whenever possible.
>
> I agree, but nothing I have advocated creates significant technical
> debt. It is also a bad engineering practice to combine functional
> changes (especially ones with poorly understood system wide
> consequences and low user autonomy) with structural tidying.
>
> > And I think there are pretty big self-inflicted current problems because
> > worries about theoretical future problems have prevented us from coming
> to
> > consensus on simple solutions.
>
> That isn't my perspective. I believe we've suffered delays because of
> a strong desire to be inclusive and hear out all ideas, and not
> forestall market adoption, even for ideas that eschewed pragmatism and
> tried to build for forever in a single step and which in our hear of
> hearts we knew were not the right path today. It's time to move past
> that and get back on track with the progress can make and have been
> making, in terms of capacity as well as many other areas. I think that
> is designing for success.
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 7397 bytes --]

  reply	other threads:[~2015-12-09  4:44 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 56+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2015-12-07 22:02 [bitcoin-dev] Capacity increases for the Bitcoin system Gregory Maxwell
2015-12-07 22:54 ` Bryan Bishop
2015-12-08  2:42 ` Anthony Towns
2015-12-08  4:58   ` Anthony Towns
2015-12-08  5:21     ` Gregory Maxwell
2015-12-08  6:54       ` Anthony Towns
2016-01-18 12:02     ` Anthony Towns
2016-01-22  9:46       ` Anthony Towns
2015-12-08 11:07 ` Wladimir J. van der Laan
2015-12-08 11:14   ` Jorge Timón
2015-12-08 15:12     ` Gavin Andresen
2015-12-08 15:55       ` Justus Ranvier
2015-12-08 17:41         ` Mark Friedenbach
2015-12-08 18:43           ` Justus Ranvier
2015-12-08 19:08           ` Tier Nolan
2015-12-08 19:31         ` Gregory Maxwell
2015-12-08 23:40         ` Jonathan Toomim
2015-12-08 23:48           ` Luke Dashjr
2015-12-09  0:54             ` Jonathan Toomim
2015-12-08 23:50           ` Jorge Timón
2015-12-09  0:56             ` Jonathan Toomim
2015-12-08 23:59       ` Gregory Maxwell
2015-12-09  0:58         ` Jorge Timón
2015-12-09  1:02           ` Jorge Timón
2015-12-09  1:09         ` Gavin Andresen
2015-12-09  1:31           ` Gregory Maxwell
2015-12-09  4:44             ` Ryan Butler [this message]
2015-12-09  6:29               ` Gregory Maxwell
2015-12-09  6:36                 ` Ryan Butler
2015-12-09  6:59                 ` Mark Friedenbach
2015-12-09  7:17                   ` Gregory Maxwell
2015-12-09  7:54                 ` Jorge Timón
2015-12-09  8:03                   ` Gregory Maxwell
2015-12-09  8:46                     ` Mark Friedenbach
2015-12-09 11:08                     ` Jorge Timón
2015-12-09 16:40                     ` Gavin Andresen
2015-12-11 16:18                       ` Jorge Timón
2015-12-11 16:43                         ` Gavin Andresen
2015-12-12  5:13                           ` digitsu
2015-12-12 15:18                             ` Mark Friedenbach
2015-12-14 11:21                               ` Jonathan Toomim
2015-12-14 12:44                                 ` Adam Back
2015-12-09  4:51             ` Anthony Towns
2015-12-09 14:51       ` Chris
     [not found]   ` <CAPWm=eUomq6SBC0ky0WSs5=_G942vigm4RmgYuq0O-yJ-vqC2A@mail.gmail.com>
     [not found]     ` <CAPg+sBig9O5+he0PWhTkX5iin14QLz5+eCCu6KfwU=DxntKYtg@mail.gmail.com>
2015-12-21  4:33       ` Pieter Wuille
2015-12-21  4:42         ` Justus Ranvier
2015-12-21  4:44         ` Alex Morcos
2015-12-21  4:50         ` Mark Friedenbach
2015-12-21  5:29           ` Douglas Roark
2015-12-21  5:21         ` Btc Drak
2015-12-21  8:07           ` Anthony Towns
2015-12-21  9:56             ` Jorge Timón
2015-12-08 23:48 ` Jonathan Toomim
2015-12-09  0:23   ` Gregory Maxwell
     [not found]   ` <CAAS2fgRP8bLWZoKR9-iJS-2RKTGQQ9NG-LpAfa2BOdcR=GuB_A@mail.gmail.com>
2015-12-09  0:40     ` Jonathan Toomim
2015-12-09 12:28 Daniele Pinna

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=CAF_2MyUJMdJyh7FKq6UYCtwJZQ59i-pnWT_tFEK5EQx65iwHDQ@mail.gmail.com \
    --to=rryananizer@gmail.com \
    --cc=bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org \
    --cc=greg@xiph.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox