Peter Todd [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2014-03-25 📝 Original message:On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at ...
📅 Original date posted:2014-03-25
📝 Original message:On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 08:45:00AM -0400, Gavin Andresen wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 8:28 AM, Peter Todd <pete at petertodd.org> wrote:
>
> > Bitcoin doesn't scale. There's a lot of issues at hand here, but the
> > most fundemental of them is that to create a block you need to update
> > the state of the UTXO set, and the way Bitcoin is designed means that
> > updating that state requires bandwidth equal to all the transaction
> > volume to keep up with the changes to what set. Long story short, we get
> > O(n^2) scaling, which is just plain infeasible.
> >
>
> We have a fundamental disagreement here.
>
> If you go back and read Satoshi's original thoughts on scaling, it is clear
> that he imagined tens of thousands of mining nodes and hundreds of millions
> of lightweight SPV users.
Yeah, about that...
https://blockchain.info/pools
For someone with 'Chief Scientist' as their job title, I'm surprised you
think so little of hard evidence and so much of idol worshipping.
P.S. A year or so ago you complained that if I cared so much about
decentralization, I should make P2Pool better. Your homework: What do
tree-chains and Andrew Miller's non-outsourcable puzzles(1) have to do
with that? What about the cube-square law? And why don't I think TXO
commitments solve the blocksize problem?
1) https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=309073.0;all
--
'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
000000000000000020366a15799010ae0432be831c197e06b19133028a9aa6f3
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 685 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20140325/067aed8a/attachment.sig>;
📝 Original message:On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 08:45:00AM -0400, Gavin Andresen wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 8:28 AM, Peter Todd <pete at petertodd.org> wrote:
>
> > Bitcoin doesn't scale. There's a lot of issues at hand here, but the
> > most fundemental of them is that to create a block you need to update
> > the state of the UTXO set, and the way Bitcoin is designed means that
> > updating that state requires bandwidth equal to all the transaction
> > volume to keep up with the changes to what set. Long story short, we get
> > O(n^2) scaling, which is just plain infeasible.
> >
>
> We have a fundamental disagreement here.
>
> If you go back and read Satoshi's original thoughts on scaling, it is clear
> that he imagined tens of thousands of mining nodes and hundreds of millions
> of lightweight SPV users.
Yeah, about that...
https://blockchain.info/pools
For someone with 'Chief Scientist' as their job title, I'm surprised you
think so little of hard evidence and so much of idol worshipping.
P.S. A year or so ago you complained that if I cared so much about
decentralization, I should make P2Pool better. Your homework: What do
tree-chains and Andrew Miller's non-outsourcable puzzles(1) have to do
with that? What about the cube-square law? And why don't I think TXO
commitments solve the blocksize problem?
1) https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=309073.0;all
--
'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
000000000000000020366a15799010ae0432be831c197e06b19133028a9aa6f3
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 685 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20140325/067aed8a/attachment.sig>;