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 935AE405 for ; Thu, 30 Jul 2015 18:03:04 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-io0-f170.google.com (mail-io0-f170.google.com [209.85.223.170]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E6CC6112 for ; Thu, 30 Jul 2015 18:03:03 +0000 (UTC) Received: by ioii16 with SMTP id i16so61662715ioi.0 for ; Thu, 30 Jul 2015 11:03:03 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=fJyugUl+Q91H3addQZoGPuXRf8Cpk++uaW0wwgq3Kp0=; b=MA3fplZwpNGOr+iGvC3z0brzeX76hvMookA1G+u5Z0WoF3lKqAKyrkxfPeKXrE8cRp qWBS1K3tYkpxZouA4jZD0IyMozKHkq4+p+SAFIBELfyAjbagVTPW+pbIJe/V7Cq2eH1o Kt2xnEcPpPGfUq6z/0mk0qM7I5oBs4SQGo0d159WaKvn9w3xONfwYPyB9j1xKinQDTdD PcksWNDIzgJuoesiMG+mqA1oDSVwKh35qiyRbrZj3L/z/biFTs1SJ9Ju/etk44yih0aG j5QZ8+KWqzehxlxwyxHZH2oM78RqIBTvRL5IYFtoywi/bYqAirep1iTAhxr9j83VUInw JfgA== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkPPMLAHM4I2shWpS+NdNy+KOq0mpqHWOu/nNNrKocJMC3bbtNrWvkhJL7fvzTF126zIlSr X-Received: by 10.107.137.13 with SMTP id l13mr13770403iod.159.1438279383426; Thu, 30 Jul 2015 11:03:03 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.107.158.140 with HTTP; Thu, 30 Jul 2015 11:02:43 -0700 (PDT) X-Originating-IP: [50.0.37.37] In-Reply-To: <4330019.CpFTjXpmfm@coldstorage> References: <1B7F00D3-41AE-44BF-818D-EC4EF279DC11@gmail.com> <1689926.ZjkxyJjokn@coldstorage> <4330019.CpFTjXpmfm@coldstorage> From: Mark Friedenbach Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2015 11:02:43 -0700 Message-ID: To: Thomas Zander Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113ed350bcc309051c1b8375 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,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 Cc: Bitcoin Dev Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Why Satoshi's temporary anti-spam measure isn'ttemporary 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: Thu, 30 Jul 2015 18:03:04 -0000 --001a113ed350bcc309051c1b8375 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 They aren't really so closely related as you are implying, since bitcoin is a trustlessly decentralized system. At present every participant needs to be able to validate the entire chain in order to be certain that their copy of the ledger state is correct, and miners need to be able to incrementally validate blocks in particularly short timeframes or else. It is possible for a decentralized system like bitcoin to scale via distribution in a way that introduces minimal trust, for example by probabilistic validation and distribution of fraud proofs. However changes to bitcoin consensus rules (mostly soft-forks) are required in order to make this possible. I don't want to discourage thinking about scaling bitcoin in such ways, as it is a viable medium term proposal. However right now with the bitcoin that exists today parallel distribution and decentralization are at odds with each other. On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 10:42 AM, Thomas Zander via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > On Thursday 30. July 2015 18.07.40 Thomas Zander via bitcoin-dev wrote: > > Remember when we went from single-core CPUs to multi-core (and > > hyperthreading)? Developers were saying it was useless because all apps > > were still single-threaded. And now, 15 years later, there are > fantastic > > frameworks to make this easy. > > > > Same will happen with distributed. Any assumption you wrote above is not > > inherent in the technology. > > My brain went a bit to fast (dinner was being served, she made me close the > laptop...) and wrote distributed above while the topic is decentralized. > Its not entirely wrong, even; Libraries or approaches that do distributed > will > be useful for decentralized systems. ;) > > -- > Thomas Zander > _______________________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev > --001a113ed350bcc309051c1b8375 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
They aren't really so closely related as you= are implying, since bitcoin is a trustlessly decentralized system. At pres= ent every participant needs to be able to validate the entire chain in orde= r to be certain that their copy of the ledger state is correct, and miners = need to be able to incrementally validate blocks in particularly short time= frames or else.

It is possible for a decentralized system like= bitcoin to scale via distribution in a way that introduces minimal trust, = for example by probabilistic validation and distribution of fraud proofs. H= owever changes to bitcoin consensus rules (mostly soft-forks) are required = in order to make this possible.

I don't want to discourage= thinking about scaling bitcoin in such ways, as it is a viable medium term= proposal. However right now with the bitcoin that exists today parallel di= stribution and decentralization are at odds with each other.

On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 a= t 10:42 AM, Thomas Zander via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev= @lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
On Thursday 30. July 2015 18.07.40 Thomas Zander via bitcoin-dev w= rote:
> Remember when we went from single-core CPUs to multi-core (and
> hyperthreading)? Developers were saying it was useless because all app= s
> were=C2=A0 still single-threaded.=C2=A0 And now, 15 years later, there= are fantastic
> frameworks to make this easy.
>
> Same will happen with distributed. Any assumption you wrote above is n= ot
> inherent in the technology.

My brain went a bit to fast (dinner was being served, she made me cl= ose the
laptop...) and wrote distributed above while the topic is decentralized. Its not entirely wrong, even; Libraries or approaches that do distributed w= ill
be useful for decentralized systems.=C2=A0 ;)

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

--001a113ed350bcc309051c1b8375--