Loi Luu [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2015-12-09 📝 Original message:I guess the most basic ...
📅 Original date posted:2015-12-09
📝 Original message:I guess the most basic question is how do you define a coin here?
Thanks,
Loi Luu
On 10 Dec 2015 2:26 a.m., "Akiva Lichtner" <akiva.lichtner at gmail.com> wrote:
> Thanks for giving serious consideration to my post.
>
> With regard to your question "if a transaction spends a "coin" that
> ends in "1" and creates a new coin that ends in "1", which partition
> should process the transaction?", I would answer that only one
> partition is involved. In other words, there are N independent block
> chains that never cross paths.
>
> With regard to your question "what is the prior data needed to
> validate that kind of TXs?" I do not understand what this means. If
> you can dumb it down a bit that would be good because there could be
> some interesting concern in this question.
>
> Since partitions are completely segregated, there is no need for a
> node to work on multiple partitions simultaneously. For attacks to be
> defeated a node needs to be able to work on multiple partitions in
> turn, not at the same time. The reason is because if the computing
> power of the good-faith nodes is unbalanced this gives attackers an
> unfair advantage.
>
> On 12/9/15, Loi Luu via bitcoin-dev
> <bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> > Dear Akiva,
> >
> > Its Loi Luu, one of the authors of the SCP protocol (
> > http://eprint.iacr.org/2015/1168.pdf ).
> >
> > Before SCP, we had been thinking hard about how to do sharding
> efficiently
> > without degrading any security guarantee. A simple solution which splits
> > the coins, or TXs in to several partitions will just not work. You have
> to
> > answer more questions to have a good solutions. For example, I wonder in
> > your proposal, if a transaction spends a "coin" that ends in "1" and
> > creates a new coin that ends in "1", which partition should process the
> > transaction? What is the prior data needed to validate that kind of TXs?
> >
> > The problem with other proposals, and probably yours as well, that we
> see
> > is that the amount of data that you need to broadcast immediately to the
> > network increases linearly with the number of TXs that the network can
> > process. Thus, sharding does not bring any advantage than simply using
> > other techniques to publish more blocks in one epoch (like Bitcoin-NG,
> > Ghost). The whole point of using sharding/ partition is to localize
> > the bandwidth used, and only broadcast only a minimal data to the
> network.
> >
> > Clearly we are able to localize the bandwidth used with our SCP protocol.
> > The cost is that now recipients need to themselves verify whether a
> > transaction is double spending. However, we think that it is a reasonable
> > tradeoff, given the potential scalability that SCP can provides.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Loi Luu.
> >
> > On Wed, Dec 9, 2015 at 12:27 AM, Akiva Lichtner via bitcoin-dev <
> > bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> >
> >> Hello,
> >>
> >> I am seeking some expert feedback on an idea for scaling Bitcoin. As a
> >> brief introduction: I work in the payment industry and I have twenty
> >> years'
> >> experience in development. I have some experience with process groups
> and
> >> ordering protocols too. I think I understand Satoshi's paper but I admit
> >> I
> >> have not read the source code.
> >>
> >> The idea is to run more than one simultaneous chain, each chain
> defeating
> >> double spending on only part of the coin. The coin would be partitioned
> >> by
> >> radix (or modulus, not sure what to call it.) For example in order to
> >> multiply throughput by a factor of ten you could run ten parallel
> chains,
> >> one would work on coin that ends in "0", one on coin that ends in "1",
> >> and
> >> so on up to "9".
> >>
> >> The number of chains could increase automatically over time based on the
> >> moving average of transaction volume.
> >>
> >> Blocks would have to contain the number of the partition they belong to,
> >> and miners would have to round-robin through partitions so that an
> >> attacker
> >> would not have an unfair advantage working on just one partition.
> >>
> >> I don't think there is much impact to miners, but clients would have to
> >> send more than one message in order to spend money. Client messages will
> >> need to enumerate coin using some sort of compression, to save space.
> >> This
> >> seems okay to me since often in computing client software does have to
> >> break things up in equal parts (e.g. memory pages, file system blocks,)
> >> and
> >> the client software could hide the details.
> >>
> >> Best wishes for continued success to the project.
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >> Akiva
> >>
> >> P.S. I found a funny anagram for SATOSHI NAKAMOTO: "NSA IS OOOK AT MATH"
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> >> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
> >> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
> >>
> >>
> >
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20151210/949b328b/attachment-0001.html>;
📝 Original message:I guess the most basic question is how do you define a coin here?
Thanks,
Loi Luu
On 10 Dec 2015 2:26 a.m., "Akiva Lichtner" <akiva.lichtner at gmail.com> wrote:
> Thanks for giving serious consideration to my post.
>
> With regard to your question "if a transaction spends a "coin" that
> ends in "1" and creates a new coin that ends in "1", which partition
> should process the transaction?", I would answer that only one
> partition is involved. In other words, there are N independent block
> chains that never cross paths.
>
> With regard to your question "what is the prior data needed to
> validate that kind of TXs?" I do not understand what this means. If
> you can dumb it down a bit that would be good because there could be
> some interesting concern in this question.
>
> Since partitions are completely segregated, there is no need for a
> node to work on multiple partitions simultaneously. For attacks to be
> defeated a node needs to be able to work on multiple partitions in
> turn, not at the same time. The reason is because if the computing
> power of the good-faith nodes is unbalanced this gives attackers an
> unfair advantage.
>
> On 12/9/15, Loi Luu via bitcoin-dev
> <bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> > Dear Akiva,
> >
> > Its Loi Luu, one of the authors of the SCP protocol (
> > http://eprint.iacr.org/2015/1168.pdf ).
> >
> > Before SCP, we had been thinking hard about how to do sharding
> efficiently
> > without degrading any security guarantee. A simple solution which splits
> > the coins, or TXs in to several partitions will just not work. You have
> to
> > answer more questions to have a good solutions. For example, I wonder in
> > your proposal, if a transaction spends a "coin" that ends in "1" and
> > creates a new coin that ends in "1", which partition should process the
> > transaction? What is the prior data needed to validate that kind of TXs?
> >
> > The problem with other proposals, and probably yours as well, that we
> see
> > is that the amount of data that you need to broadcast immediately to the
> > network increases linearly with the number of TXs that the network can
> > process. Thus, sharding does not bring any advantage than simply using
> > other techniques to publish more blocks in one epoch (like Bitcoin-NG,
> > Ghost). The whole point of using sharding/ partition is to localize
> > the bandwidth used, and only broadcast only a minimal data to the
> network.
> >
> > Clearly we are able to localize the bandwidth used with our SCP protocol.
> > The cost is that now recipients need to themselves verify whether a
> > transaction is double spending. However, we think that it is a reasonable
> > tradeoff, given the potential scalability that SCP can provides.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Loi Luu.
> >
> > On Wed, Dec 9, 2015 at 12:27 AM, Akiva Lichtner via bitcoin-dev <
> > bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> >
> >> Hello,
> >>
> >> I am seeking some expert feedback on an idea for scaling Bitcoin. As a
> >> brief introduction: I work in the payment industry and I have twenty
> >> years'
> >> experience in development. I have some experience with process groups
> and
> >> ordering protocols too. I think I understand Satoshi's paper but I admit
> >> I
> >> have not read the source code.
> >>
> >> The idea is to run more than one simultaneous chain, each chain
> defeating
> >> double spending on only part of the coin. The coin would be partitioned
> >> by
> >> radix (or modulus, not sure what to call it.) For example in order to
> >> multiply throughput by a factor of ten you could run ten parallel
> chains,
> >> one would work on coin that ends in "0", one on coin that ends in "1",
> >> and
> >> so on up to "9".
> >>
> >> The number of chains could increase automatically over time based on the
> >> moving average of transaction volume.
> >>
> >> Blocks would have to contain the number of the partition they belong to,
> >> and miners would have to round-robin through partitions so that an
> >> attacker
> >> would not have an unfair advantage working on just one partition.
> >>
> >> I don't think there is much impact to miners, but clients would have to
> >> send more than one message in order to spend money. Client messages will
> >> need to enumerate coin using some sort of compression, to save space.
> >> This
> >> seems okay to me since often in computing client software does have to
> >> break things up in equal parts (e.g. memory pages, file system blocks,)
> >> and
> >> the client software could hide the details.
> >>
> >> Best wishes for continued success to the project.
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >> Akiva
> >>
> >> P.S. I found a funny anagram for SATOSHI NAKAMOTO: "NSA IS OOOK AT MATH"
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> >> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
> >> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
> >>
> >>
> >
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20151210/949b328b/attachment-0001.html>;