Paul Sztorc [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2017-07-17 📝 Original message:On 7/17/2017 2:49 PM, Alex ...

📅 Original date posted:2017-07-17
📝 Original message:On 7/17/2017 2:49 PM, Alex Morcos wrote:
> I felt like this whole conversation was putting the cart before the
> horse.
> You might very well have some good ideas in your roadmap update, to
> tell you the truth, I didn't even read it.

Fine, but, before the roadmap itself, I wrote exactly about why I
thought we should update it. Evidently you disagree with the horse, but
it is in front of the cart where it belongs.


> But I don't think we should be taking relatively new/untested ideas
> such as Drivechain and sticking them on a roadmap.

It isn't a "roadmap" anymore -- I changed it to a "forecast".

And I edited the drivechain part to emphasize only that mainchain space
would likely be freed as defectors leave for an alt-chain. The departing
individuals (ir hardcore LargeBlockers) will leave, despite a
security-model NACK from anyone here (in fact, it would probably only
encourage them). That leaves more space for those who remain.


> There is a tendency in this community to hear about the latest and
> greatest idea and immediately fixate on it as our salvation. ... But
> please, lets be conservative and flexible with how we evolve Bitcoin.
> We don't even know if or when we'll get segwit yet.

Drivechain (c. bitcointalk Feb 2014, blog Nov 2015) is actually much
older than "the" SegWit to which you refer. As for being "conservative"
and "flexible", I have tried to do everything I know -- Scaling
conferences, in-person discussions, papers, posts, and presentations,
adding BMM, and posting here for additional peer review. I'm sure you
have lots of ideas about how it could be more conservative and/or
flexible, which I would love to hear.

But again I think people are getting hung up on the drivechain part --
it can be easily taken out, I just thought that, if the plan included
more overall flexibility for industry, then it would help deter network
splits and scaling drama.

Paul



> On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 1:13 PM, Paul Sztorc via bitcoin-dev
> <bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
> <mailto:bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org>> wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> Last week I posted about updating the Core Scalability Roadmap.
>
> I'm not sure what the future of it is, given that it was concept
> NACK'ed
> by Greg Maxwell the author of the original roadmap, who said that he
> regretted writing the first one.
>
> Nonetheless, it was ACKed by everyone else that I heard from,
> except for
> Tom Zander (who objected that it should be a specific project
> document,
> not a "Bitcoin" document -- I sortof agree and decided to label it a
> "Core" document -- whether or not anything happens with that label
> is up
> to the community).
>
> I therefore decided to:
> 1. Put the draft on GitHub [1]
> 2. Update it based on all of the week 1 feedback [2]
> 3. Add some spaces at the bottom for comments / expressions of
> interest [2]
>
> However, without interest from the maintainers of bitcoincore.org
> <http://bitcoincore.org>;
> (specifically these [3, 4] pages and similar) the document will
> probably
> be unable to gain traction.
>
> Cheers,
> Paul
>
> [1]
> https://github.com/psztorc/btc-core-capacity-2/blob/master/draft.txt
> <https://github.com/psztorc/btc-core-capacity-2/blob/master/draft.txt>;
> [2]
> https://github.com/psztorc/btc-core-capacity-2/commit/2b4f0ecc9015ee398ce0486ca5c3613e3b929c00
> <https://github.com/psztorc/btc-core-capacity-2/commit/2b4f0ecc9015ee398ce0486ca5c3613e3b929c00>;
> [3] https://bitcoincore.org/en/2015/12/21/capacity-increase/
> <https://bitcoincore.org/en/2015/12/21/capacity-increase/>;
> [4] https://bitcoincore.org/en/2015/12/23/capacity-increases-faq/
> <https://bitcoincore.org/en/2015/12/23/capacity-increases-faq/>;
>
>
> On 7/10/2017 12:50 PM, Paul Sztorc wrote:
> > Summary
> > =========
> >
> > In my opinion, Greg Maxwell's scaling roadmap [1] succeeded in a few
> > crucial ways. One success was that it synchronized the entire
> Bitcoin
> > community, helping to bring finality to the (endless)
> conversations of
> > that time, and get everyone back to work. However, I feel that
> the Dec
> > 7, 2015 roadmap is simply too old to serve this function any
> longer. We
> > should revise it: remove what has been accomplished, introduce new
> > innovations and approaches, and update deadlines and projections.
> >
> >
> > Why We Should Update the Roadmap
> > =================================
> >
> > In a P2P system like Bitcoin, we lack authoritative info-sources
> (for
> > example, a "textbook" or academic journal), and as a result
> > conversations tend to have a problematic lack of progress. They
> do not
> > "accumulate", as everyone must start over. Ironically, the scaling
> > conversation _itself_ has a fatal O(n^2) scaling problem.
> >
> > The roadmap helped solve these problems by being constant in
> size, and
> > subjecting itself to publication, endorsement, criticism, and so
> forth.
> > Despite the (unavoidable) nuance and complexity of each individual
> > opinion, it was at least globally known that X participants
> endorsed Y
> > set of claims.
> >
> > Unfortunately, the Dec 2015 roadmap is now 19 months old -- it
> is quite
> > obsolete and replacing it is long overdue. For example, it
> highlights
> > older items (CSV, compact blocks, versionbits) as being _future_
> > improvements, and makes no mention of new high-likelihood
> improvements
> > (Schnorr) or mis-emphasizes them (LN). It even contains mistakes
> (SegWit
> > fraud proofs). To read the old roadmap properly, one must
> already be a
> > technical expert. For me, this defeats the entire point of
> having one in
> > the first place.
> >
> > A new roadmap would be worth your attention, even if you didn't
> sign it,
> > because a refusal to sign would still be informative (and,
> therefore,
> > helpful)!
> >
> > So, with that in mind, let me present a first draft. Obviously, I am
> > strongly open to edits and feedback, because I have no way of
> knowing
> > everyone's opinions. I admit that I am partially campaigning for my
> > Drivechain project, and also for this "scalability"/"capacity"
> > distinction...that's because I believe in both and think they are
> > helpful. But please feel free to suggest edits.
> >
> > I emphasized concrete numbers, and concrete dates.
> >
> > And I did NOT necessarily write it from my own point of view, I
> tried
> > earnestly to capture a (useful) community view. So, let me know
> how I did.
> >
> > ==== Beginning of New ("July 2017") Roadmap Draft ====
> >
> > This document updates the previous roadmap [1] of Dec 2015. The
> older
> > statement endorsed a belief that "the community is ready to
> deliver on
> > its shared vision that addresses the needs of the system while
> upholding
> > its values".
> >
> > That belief has not changed, but the shared vision has certainly
> grown
> > sharper over the last 18 months. Below is a list of technologies
> which
> > either increase Bitcoin's maximum tps rate ("capacity"), or
> which make
> > it easier to process a higher volume of transactions
> ("scalability").
> >
> > First, over the past 18 months, the technical community has
> completed a
> > number of items [2] on the Dec 2015 roadmap. VersonBits (BIP 9)
> enables
> > Bitcoin to handle multiple soft fork upgrades at once. Compact
> Blocks
> > (BIP 152) allows for much faster block propagation, as does the
> FIBRE
> > Network [3]. Check Sequence Verify (BIP 112) allows trading
> partners to

> > mutually update an active transaction without writing it to the
> > blockchain (this helps to enable the Lightning Network).
> >
> > Second, Segregated Witness (BIP 141), which reorganizes data in
> blocks
> > to handle signatures separately, has been completed and awaits
> > activation (multiple BIPS). It is estimated to increase capacity
> by a
> > factor of 2.2. It also improves scalability in many ways. First, SW
> > includes a fee-policy which encourages users to minimize their
> impact on
> > the UTXO set. Second, SW achieves linear scaling of sighash
> operations,
> > which prevents the network from crashing when large transactions are
> > broadcast. Third, SW provides an efficiency gain for everyone
> who is not
> > verifying signatures, as these no longer need to be downloaded or
> > stored. SegWit is an enabling technology for the Lightning Network,
> > script versioning (specifically Schnorr signatures), and has a
> number of
> > benefits which
> > are unrelated to capacity [4].
> >
> > Third, the Lightning Network, which allows users to transact without
> > broadcasting to the network, is complete [5, 6] and awaits the
> > activation of SegWit. For those users who are able to make a single
> > on-chain transaction, it is estimated to increase both capacity and
> > scalability by a factor of ~1000 (although these capacity
> increases will
> > vary with usage patterns). LN also greatly improves transaction
> speed
> > and transaction privacy.
> >
> > Fourth, Transaction Compression [7], observes that Bitcoin
> transaction
> > serialization is not optimized for storage or network
> communication. If
> > transactions were optimally compressed (as is possible today), this
> > would improve scalability, but not capacity, by roughly 20%, and
> in some
> > cases over 30%.
> >
> > Fifth, Schnorr Signature Aggregation, which shrinks transactions by
> > allowing many transactions to have a single shared signature,
> has been
> > implemented [8] in draft form in libsecp256k1, and will likely
> be ready
> > by Q4 of 2016. One analysis [9] suggests that signature aggregation
> > would result in storage and bandwidth savings of at least 25%, which
> > would therefore increase scalability and capacity by a factor of
> 1.33.
> > The relative savings are even greater for multisignature
> transactions.
> >
> > Sixth, drivechain [10], which allows bitcoins to be temporarily
> > offloaded to 'alternative' blockchain networks ("sidechains"), is
> > currently under peer review and may be usable by end of 2017.
> Although
> > it has no impact on scalability, it does allow users to opt-in to
> > greater capacity, by moving their BTC to a new network
> (although, they
> > will achieve less decentralization as a result). Individual
> drivechains
> > may have different security tradeoffs (for example, a greater
> reliance
> > on UTXO commitments, or MimbleWimble's shrinking block history)
> which
> > may give them individually greater scalability than mainchain
> Bitcoin.
> >
> > Finally, the capacity improvements outlined above may not be
> sufficient.
> > If so, it may be necessary to use a hard fork to increase the
> blocksize
> > (and blockweight, sigops, etc) by a moderate amount. Such an
> increase
> > should take advantage of the existing research on hard forks,
> which is
> > substantial [11]. Specifically, there is some consensus that
> Spoonnet
> > [12] is the most attractive option for such a hardfork. There is
> > currently no consensus on a hard fork date, but there is a rough
> > consensus that one would require at least 6 months to coordinate
> > effectively, which would place it in the year 2018 at earliest.
> >
> > The above are only a small sample of current scaling
> technologies. And
> > even an exhaustive list of scaling technologies, would itself
> only be a
> > small sample of total Bitcoin innovation (which is proceeding at
> > breakneck speed).
> >
> > Signed,
> > <Names Here>
> >
> > [1]
> >
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-December/011865.html
> <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-December/011865.html>;
> > [2]
> https://bitcoincore.org/en/2017/03/13/performance-optimizations-1/
> <https://bitcoincore.org/en/2017/03/13/performance-optimizations-1/>;
> > [3] http://bluematt.bitcoin.ninja/2016/07/07/relay-networks/
> <http://bluematt.bitcoin.ninja/2016/07/07/relay-networks/>;
> > [4] https://bitcoincore.org/en/2016/01/26/segwit-benefits/
> <https://bitcoincore.org/en/2016/01/26/segwit-benefits/>;
> > [5]
> >
> http://lightning.community/release/software/lnd/lightning/2017/05/03/litening/
> <http://lightning.community/release/software/lnd/lightning/2017/05/03/litening/>;
> > [6] https://github.com/ACINQ/eclair
> <https://github.com/ACINQ/eclair>;
> > [7] https://people.xiph.org/~greg/compacted_txn.txt
> <https://people.xiph.org/%7Egreg/compacted_txn.txt>;
> > [8]
> >
> https://github.com/ElementsProject/secp256k1-zkp/blob/d78f12b04ec3d9f5744cd4c51f20951106b9c41a/src/secp256k1.c#L592-L594
> <https://github.com/ElementsProject/secp256k1-zkp/blob/d78f12b04ec3d9f5744cd4c51f20951106b9c41a/src/secp256k1.c#L592-L594>;
> > [9]
> https://bitcoincore.org/en/2017/03/23/schnorr-signature-aggregation/
> <https://bitcoincore.org/en/2017/03/23/schnorr-signature-aggregation/>;
> > [10] http://www.drivechain.info/
> > [11] https://bitcoinhardforkresearch.github.io/
> <https://bitcoinhardforkresearch.github.io/>;
> > [12]
> >
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2017-February/013542.html
> <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2017-February/013542.html>;
> >
> > ==== End of Roadmap Draft ====
> >
> > In short, please let me know:
> >
> > 1. If you agree that it would be helpful if the roadmap were
> updated.
> > 2. To what extent, if any, you like this draft.
> > 3. Edits you would make (specifically, I wonder about Drivechain
> > thoughts and Hard Fork thoughts, particularly how to phrase the Hard
> > Fork date).
> >
> > Google Doc (if you're into that kind of thing):
> >
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1gxcUnmYl7yM0oKR9NY9zCPbBbPNocmCq-jjBOQSVH-A/edit?usp=sharing
> <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1gxcUnmYl7yM0oKR9NY9zCPbBbPNocmCq-jjBOQSVH-A/edit?usp=sharing>;
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Paul
> >
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
> <mailto:bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org>
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
> <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev>;
>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20170717/5c86ddb8/attachment-0001.html>;