Arnoud Kouwenhoven - Pukaki Corp [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: š Original date posted:2015-08-05 š Original message:Thanks for the reply. My ...
š
Original date posted:2015-08-05
š Original message:Thanks for the reply. My understanding is that the bitcoin relay network is
a backbone of connected high speed servers to increase the rate at which
transactions and new blocks propagate - and remove a number of delays in
processing. But it would still require the miners to download the entire
block before building on top of it with any degree of confidence. With a
tweak to only send the required information for other miners to build on
top of that block, this is a step towards what we propose, yet would
require trust that the header information sent is accurate. The bitcoin
relay network website states that blocks are not fully verified and should
be checked by the miners before building on top of them.
What we propose is more complex (granted!), yet that complexity serves a
purpose. We reduce (and hopefully eliminate) the adverse incentive to
entice miners to build on inaccurate data. This is achieved by making the
financial losses of fake messages outweigh the financial gains of such
attack vectors. It could also help in the block size debate if this
proposed solution would eliminate the disadvantages of large blocks.
On Wed, Aug 5, 2015 at 1:27 PM, Matt Corallo <lf-lists at mattcorallo.com>
wrote:
> See-also: Bitcoinrelaynetwork.org. It's already in use my the majority of
> large miners, is publicly available to anyone, and the protocol is rather
> simple and the client could be tweaked easily to keep exactly it's block
> ready to quickly relay to the nearest server (ie only have to relay the
> header, the coinbase transaction, and only small other data... Experience
> shows this is really easy to fit into one packet on the wire). It's not
> nearly as complicated as your suggestion, but may still marginally favor
> well-connected miners, but hopefully not much (when you're taking about
> single packets, it should all be latency, and the servers are well
> distributed). If you feel so inclined, there are some todos to make it
> really meet is efficiency limits filled on
> github.com/TheBlueMatt/RelayNode, feel free to rewrite the protocol if
> you really want :).
>
> Matt
>
> On August 5, 2015 9:07:44 PM GMT+02:00, Arnoud Kouwenhoven - Pukaki Corp
> via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
>> Hello all.
>>
>> Weād like to share an idea we have to dramatically increase the bitcoin
>> block propagation speed after a new block has been mined for the first time.
>>
>> Efficient bitcoin block propagation
>> A proposed solution to provide near-instantaneous block propagation on
>> the bitcoin network, even with slow network connections or large block
>> sizes. Increasing mining efficiency for everyone while decreasing
>> transaction confirmation times and strengthening the distributed nature of
>> bitcoin.
>>
>> Short summary: we propose to introduce bitcoin-backed guarantees
>> (āGuarantee Messagesā) between miners. This would allow miners to mine on
>> blocks that are not yet fully transmitted. This reduces the effect of slow
>> internet connections, leveling the playing field between the 1st world
>> fiberoptic datacenter miners and the rest of the world. We also believe it
>> strengthens the bitcoin network by using existing processing power that is
>> currently wasted into further securing the blockchain, and it reduces the
>> likelihood of transactions becoming confirmed, then unconfirmed and then
>> -hopefully- confirmed again (due to different miners finding competing
>> blocks with different transactions at approx the same time).
>>
>> It is possible to implement our idea as a fork of bitcoind, or as layer
>> between the standard bitcoind and the mining equipment. In the future it
>> could be incorporated in the bitcoin core if and when that becomes a
>> priority, but that step would not make sense until it becomes a priority.
>>
>> There are a lot of nuances in this idea, and the first reaction is quite
>> probably that this is a crazy idea. We have attempted to address the most
>> important nuances in our proposal, which is currently at v.0.2.
>>
>> We cannot guarantee that there are no āhidden devils in the detailsā and
>> we invite you to be critical in a friendly and constructive manner. We will
>> do our best to answer all questions that arise.
>>
>> The āofficialā proposal is at:
>> PDF: http://pukaki.bz/efficient-bitcoin-block-propagation-v.0.2.pdf
>> HTML: http://pukaki.bz/efficient-bitcoin-block-propagation-v.0.2.html
>>
>> -- Arnoud Kouwenhoven
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> 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/20150805/8a133c4e/attachment.html>;
š Original message:Thanks for the reply. My understanding is that the bitcoin relay network is
a backbone of connected high speed servers to increase the rate at which
transactions and new blocks propagate - and remove a number of delays in
processing. But it would still require the miners to download the entire
block before building on top of it with any degree of confidence. With a
tweak to only send the required information for other miners to build on
top of that block, this is a step towards what we propose, yet would
require trust that the header information sent is accurate. The bitcoin
relay network website states that blocks are not fully verified and should
be checked by the miners before building on top of them.
What we propose is more complex (granted!), yet that complexity serves a
purpose. We reduce (and hopefully eliminate) the adverse incentive to
entice miners to build on inaccurate data. This is achieved by making the
financial losses of fake messages outweigh the financial gains of such
attack vectors. It could also help in the block size debate if this
proposed solution would eliminate the disadvantages of large blocks.
On Wed, Aug 5, 2015 at 1:27 PM, Matt Corallo <lf-lists at mattcorallo.com>
wrote:
> See-also: Bitcoinrelaynetwork.org. It's already in use my the majority of
> large miners, is publicly available to anyone, and the protocol is rather
> simple and the client could be tweaked easily to keep exactly it's block
> ready to quickly relay to the nearest server (ie only have to relay the
> header, the coinbase transaction, and only small other data... Experience
> shows this is really easy to fit into one packet on the wire). It's not
> nearly as complicated as your suggestion, but may still marginally favor
> well-connected miners, but hopefully not much (when you're taking about
> single packets, it should all be latency, and the servers are well
> distributed). If you feel so inclined, there are some todos to make it
> really meet is efficiency limits filled on
> github.com/TheBlueMatt/RelayNode, feel free to rewrite the protocol if
> you really want :).
>
> Matt
>
> On August 5, 2015 9:07:44 PM GMT+02:00, Arnoud Kouwenhoven - Pukaki Corp
> via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
>> Hello all.
>>
>> Weād like to share an idea we have to dramatically increase the bitcoin
>> block propagation speed after a new block has been mined for the first time.
>>
>> Efficient bitcoin block propagation
>> A proposed solution to provide near-instantaneous block propagation on
>> the bitcoin network, even with slow network connections or large block
>> sizes. Increasing mining efficiency for everyone while decreasing
>> transaction confirmation times and strengthening the distributed nature of
>> bitcoin.
>>
>> Short summary: we propose to introduce bitcoin-backed guarantees
>> (āGuarantee Messagesā) between miners. This would allow miners to mine on
>> blocks that are not yet fully transmitted. This reduces the effect of slow
>> internet connections, leveling the playing field between the 1st world
>> fiberoptic datacenter miners and the rest of the world. We also believe it
>> strengthens the bitcoin network by using existing processing power that is
>> currently wasted into further securing the blockchain, and it reduces the
>> likelihood of transactions becoming confirmed, then unconfirmed and then
>> -hopefully- confirmed again (due to different miners finding competing
>> blocks with different transactions at approx the same time).
>>
>> It is possible to implement our idea as a fork of bitcoind, or as layer
>> between the standard bitcoind and the mining equipment. In the future it
>> could be incorporated in the bitcoin core if and when that becomes a
>> priority, but that step would not make sense until it becomes a priority.
>>
>> There are a lot of nuances in this idea, and the first reaction is quite
>> probably that this is a crazy idea. We have attempted to address the most
>> important nuances in our proposal, which is currently at v.0.2.
>>
>> We cannot guarantee that there are no āhidden devils in the detailsā and
>> we invite you to be critical in a friendly and constructive manner. We will
>> do our best to answer all questions that arise.
>>
>> The āofficialā proposal is at:
>> PDF: http://pukaki.bz/efficient-bitcoin-block-propagation-v.0.2.pdf
>> HTML: http://pukaki.bz/efficient-bitcoin-block-propagation-v.0.2.html
>>
>> -- Arnoud Kouwenhoven
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> 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/20150805/8a133c4e/attachment.html>;