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 3A2DCE2A for ; Wed, 9 Dec 2015 04:44:11 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-io0-f171.google.com (mail-io0-f171.google.com [209.85.223.171]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3ECF7154 for ; Wed, 9 Dec 2015 04:44:10 +0000 (UTC) Received: by ioir85 with SMTP id r85so47425300ioi.1 for ; Tue, 08 Dec 2015 20:44:09 -0800 (PST) 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 :cc:content-type; bh=TvJI5YZmrv9PnHc4AD9irZ0o2zRnwqR6EakZZGg0Wgo=; b=x9GlTxbgxfjV7+ztcV7RYkvZc269fbFrz57jmnPpa0fswt+RlaW6R+C0qqJbkT5JqI ogbQgeUtIVpvRY5Hlxl9KbbA1r8ClkiABpaQA18BFwocn19540dFHVZHE+4+fruvD9R7 J6/kyCFU397AWZnMoPQvMzAa9SRcCPjW8fqrwdtLA5+ZMQN8kpJJEIgB24XvYRIlaMOM QR4fXmqVMEIgcQDYeHDOXWz13Jqc7wW5MaLz5HuqoiFvqR/lpA4w6st64AGlka8VITyl N/ocPLL0zypr5mxBQ3uey8+dWm6d1eGVUGlU8t/IOHALkjqiDTyNrbU/GaKod7eve/af 8CcA== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.107.14.137 with SMTP id 131mr3308897ioo.69.1449636249660; Tue, 08 Dec 2015 20:44:09 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.107.137.226 with HTTP; Tue, 8 Dec 2015 20:44:09 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <20151208110752.GA31180@amethyst.visucore.com> Date: Tue, 8 Dec 2015 22:44:09 -0600 Message-ID: From: Ryan Butler To: Gregory Maxwell Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113fdfd2b6f17005266fbd25 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 X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 09 Dec 2015 05:25:43 +0000 Cc: Bitcoin Dev Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Capacity increases for the Bitcoin system. 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, 09 Dec 2015 04:44:11 -0000 --001a113fdfd2b6f17005266fbd25 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 >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 > 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 > --001a113fdfd2b6f17005266fbd25 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>I agree, but not= hing I have advocated creates significant technical
>debt. It is also a bad e= ngineering practice to combine functional
>changes (especially ones with poor= ly understood system wide
>consequences and low user autonomy) with structur= al tidying.

I don't think I would cla= ssify placing things in consensus critical code when it doesn't need to= be as "structural tidying". =C2=A0Gavin said "pile on" which you took as implying "a= lot", he can correct me, but I believe he meant "add to". = =C2=A0

<= div>>=C2=A0(especially ones with poor= ly understood system wide=C2=A0cons= equences 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 r= eason to avoid refactoring.=C2=A0 It's more a reason to increase testin= g so that you will have confidence when you refactor.

Also I don't thi= nk Martin Fowler would agree with you...

"Refactoring should be done in conjunction with adding n= ew features."
=C2=A0"Alway= s leave the code better than when you found it."

&= quot;Often you start working on adding n= ew functionality and you realize the existing structures don't play wel= l 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 Fowle= r

<= br>






On Tue, Dec 8, 2015 at 7:31 PM, Gregory Maxwell via bitcoin-d= ev <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<= br> > segwitness-spending SIGHASH_ALL inputs.
>
> Because the segwitness inputs are smaller in the block, you can fit mo= re of
> them into 1 megabyte. Each will hash very close to one megabyte of dat= a.

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.=C2=A0 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" (se= e
> http://gavinandresen.ninja/designing-for-succes= s ).

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-cr= itical
> 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<= br> 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 becau= se
> worries about theoretical future problems have prevented us from comin= g to
> consensus on simple solutions.

That isn't my perspective. I believe we've suffered delays b= ecause 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/mail= man/listinfo/bitcoin-dev

--001a113fdfd2b6f17005266fbd25--