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 63C9A8E4 for ; Tue, 4 Aug 2015 13:54:48 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-ig0-f182.google.com (mail-ig0-f182.google.com [209.85.213.182]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BFC1F1BF for ; Tue, 4 Aug 2015 13:54:47 +0000 (UTC) Received: by igk11 with SMTP id 11so93151428igk.1 for ; Tue, 04 Aug 2015 06:54:47 -0700 (PDT) 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=wEbjTf9OB0WbBPkdn7u+0Cpw0+kkLqbUtiPSUWM8kSA=; b=Ly3mqV/lYsmJK5eUKr0wpDS3TncCG23iIjpE4EKVt45tIzNWXR13YCahcu89cx2i8a 8uARYw/WoLEgf7+EplyKLmnQUNCgVIY3wuOEROXW1wic2DrKOGow8muEJKeqn9/QUO1V itCMwCwHlaQG64g397UKHFJBOasVxLLsZtNdwL62yUGpp32uhKxLKpczNRDc2z3EnFlA jK+IziMlbjn2vAZpaUzMvychpZk1NpSXNFVN+gRVLiLls2pmdZEqs9Kmi0ahl8C1Nj7l rBf3HyWpLA4ZWNEmbKPFnk9axrm96oaFoxKwWQg9l2pMthttDvlOovr1osabJgRKcXDG i03A== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.50.93.69 with SMTP id cs5mr28164799igb.4.1438696487247; Tue, 04 Aug 2015 06:54:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.36.77.201 with HTTP; Tue, 4 Aug 2015 06:54:47 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2015 15:54:47 +0200 Message-ID: From: Pieter Wuille To: Gavin Andresen Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e01537ed80fe5e7051c7ca156 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 Cc: Bitcoin Dev Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Block size following technological growth 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: Tue, 04 Aug 2015 13:54:48 -0000 --089e01537ed80fe5e7051c7ca156 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On Tue, Aug 4, 2015 at 3:12 PM, Gavin Andresen wrote: > On Tue, Aug 4, 2015 at 7:27 AM, Pieter Wuille via bitcoin-dev < > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > >> I would say that things already demonstrately got terrible. The mining >> landscape is very centralized, with apparently a majority depending on >> agreements to trust each other's announced blocks without validation. >> > And that is a problem... why? > If miners need to form alliances of trusting each other's blocks without validation to overcome the inefficiencies of slow block propagation, I think we have a system that is in direct conflict with the word "permissionless" that you use later. > As Bitcoin grows, pieces of the ecosystem will specialize. Satoshi's > original code did everything: hashing, block assembly, wallet, consensus, > network. That is changing, and that is OK. > Specialization is perfectly fine. > > I believe that if the above would have happened overnight, people would > have cried wolf. But somehow it happened slow enough, and "things kept > working". > > I don't think that this is a good criterion. Bitcoin can "work" with > gigabyte blocks today, if everyone uses the same few blockchain validation > services, the same few online wallets, and mining is done by a cartel that > only allows joining after signing a contract so they can sue you if you > create an invalid block. Do you think people will then agree that "things > got demonstratebly worse"? > > Don't turn Bitcoin into something uninteresting, please. > Why is what you, personally, find interesting relevant? > I find it interesting to build a system that has potential to bring about innovation. I understand you want to build an extremely decentralized system, where > everybody participating trusts nothing except the genesis block hash. > That is not true, I'm sorry if that is the impression I gave. I see centralization and scalability as a trade-off, and for better or for worse, the block chain only offers one trade-off. I want to see technology built on top that introduces lower levels of trust than typical fully centralized systems, while offering increased convenience, speed, reliability, and scale. I just don't think that all of that can happen on the lowest layer without hurting everything built on top. We need different trade-offs, and the blockchain is just one, but a very fundamental one. I think it is more interesting to build a system that works for hundreds of > millions of people, with no central point of control and the opportunity > for ANYBODY to participate at any level. Permission-less innovation is what > I find interesting. > That sounds amazing, but do you think that Bitcoin, as it exists today, can scale to hundreds of millions of users, while retaining any glimpse of permission-lessness and decentralization? I think we need low-trust off-chain systems and other innovations to make that happen. > And I think the current "demonstrably terrible" Bitcoin system is still > INCREDIBLY interesting. > I'm happy for you, then. -- Pieter --089e01537ed80fe5e7051c7ca156 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Tue, Aug 4, 2015 at 3:12 PM, Gavin Andresen <g= avinandresen@gmail.com> wrote:
=
=
On T= ue, Aug 4, 2015 at 7:27 AM, Pieter Wuille via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:

I would say that things already demo= nstrately got terrible. The mining landscape is very centralized, with appa= rently a majority depending on agreements to trust each other's announc= ed blocks without validation.

And that is a pro= blem... why?

If min= ers need to form alliances of trusting each other's blocks without vali= dation to overcome the inefficiencies of slow block propagation, I think we= have a system that is in direct conflict with the word "permissionles= s" that you use later.
=C2=A0
As Bitcoin grows, pieces of the ecosystem will specialize. Satoshi&#= 39;s original code did everything: hashing, block assembly, wallet, consens= us, network. That is changing, and that is OK.

Specialization is perfectly fin= e.

I believe= that if the above would have happened overnight, people would have cried w= olf. But somehow it happened slow enough, and "things kept working&quo= t;.

I don't think that this is a good criterion. Bitcoin can= "work" with gigabyte blocks today, if everyone uses the same few= blockchain validation services, the same few online wallets, and mining is= done by a cartel that only allows joining after signing a contract so they= can sue you if you create an invalid block. Do you think people will then = agree that "things got demonstratebly worse"?

Don't turn Bitcoin into something uninteresting, please.=

Why is what you, personally, find i= nteresting relevant?

I find it = interesting to build a system that has potential to bring about innovation.=

I understand you want to build an extremely decentralized = system, where everybody participating trusts nothing except the genesis blo= ck hash.

That is not true, I= 9;m sorry if that is the impression I gave.

I see central= ization and scalability as a trade-off, and for better or for worse, the bl= ock chain only offers one trade-off. I want to see technology built on top = that introduces lower levels of trust than typical fully centralized system= s, while offering increased convenience, speed, reliability, and scale. I j= ust don't think that all of that can happen on the lowest layer without= hurting everything built on top. We need different trade-offs, and the blo= ckchain is just one, but a very fundamental one.

I think it is= more interesting to build a system that works for hundreds of millions of = people, with no central point of control and the opportunity for ANYBODY to= participate at any level. Permission-less innovation is what I find intere= sting.

That sounds amazing,= but do you think that Bitcoin, as it exists today, can scale to hundreds o= f millions of users, while retaining any glimpse of permission-lessness and= decentralization? I think we need low-trust off-chain systems and other in= novations to make that happen.


And I think the current &q= uot;demonstrably terrible" Bitcoin system is still INCREDIBLY interest= ing.

I'm happy for you, the= n.

--
Pieter

--089e01537ed80fe5e7051c7ca156--