📅 Original date posted:2011-12-17
🗒️ Summary of this message: The author suggests structuring a network in a hypercube and using prefixes to address different parts of the network for storing transactions and blocks. They advise against using DHT without a working implementation. Mutual authentication of peers could address concerns about the tragedy of the commons.
📝 Original message:On Sat, Dec 17, 2011 at 8:37 AM, Christian Decker
<decker.christian at gmail.com> wrote:
> My idea was to structure the network in a hypercube and use prefixes to
> address different parts of the network, and use those prefixes also to find
> the location where an item (transaction, block, ...) should be stored. Each
> vertex in the hypercube is a small, highly connected, cluster of nodes.
I strongly advise people who are not me to use this sort of scheme, so
that I may enjoy the benefits of robbing you blind.
.... But really, saying "some sort of DHT" without basically
presenting a working implementation that demonstrates the feasibility
of solving the very difficulty attack resistance problems these
schemes have basically triggers my time-wasting-idiot filter. (Or
likewise, presenting a fixed network structure that would have a nice
small and easily identifiable min-cut...)
I don't doubt I'm completely alone in this, though perhaps I'm more
of a jerk about it. Even if your actual proposal might have some
merit you should be aware that every fool who has operated a
bittorrent client has heard of "DHT" and, although they may not even
understand what a hash table is, many have no reservation going around
suggesting them for _every_ distributed systems problem. Want to scale
matrix multiples? DHT! Want to validate bitcoin blocks? DHT! Network
syncup slow (because It's bound on validation related local IO)? DHT!
I suggest people solve the real problems first, then worry what name
to give the solutions. ;)
To address gavin's tragedy of the commons concern, one useful feature
would being able to mutually authenticate a peer... then full nodes
could pick and choose which lite nodes they're willing to do (a lot
of) hard work for. This would also be valuable because some modes of
lite operation require non-zero trust of the full node being queried.
Gregory Maxwell [ARCHIVE] /
npub1f2…crwet
2023-06-07 02:49:53
in reply to nevent1q…ztnk
Author Public Key
npub1f2nvlx49er5c7sqa43src6ssyp6snd4qwvtkwm5avc2l84cs84esecrwetPublished at
2023-06-07 02:49:53Event JSON
{
"id": "0a9bb30b58db5e381b91f262c99968f745eebf08f4ff7659ba132f60a962d3a1",
"pubkey": "4aa6cf9aa5c8e98f401dac603c6a10207509b6a07317676e9d6615f3d7103d73",
"created_at": 1686106193,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"4af0205fae641367dcfd78e02a7a0b6f75f880a1f702affe5d70f7b792eb8207",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"677690e75ff99417f46d7dacf213260f292f086af6fb67502bceef657431febe",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"72cd40332ec782dd0a7f63acb03e3b6fdafa6d91bd1b6125cd8b7117a1bb8057"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2011-12-17\n🗒️ Summary of this message: The author suggests structuring a network in a hypercube and using prefixes to address different parts of the network for storing transactions and blocks. They advise against using DHT without a working implementation. Mutual authentication of peers could address concerns about the tragedy of the commons.\n📝 Original message:On Sat, Dec 17, 2011 at 8:37 AM, Christian Decker\n\u003cdecker.christian at gmail.com\u003e wrote:\n\u003e My idea was to structure the network in a hypercube and use prefixes to\n\u003e address different parts of the network, and use those prefixes also to find\n\u003e the location where an item (transaction, block, ...) should be stored. Each\n\u003e vertex in the hypercube is a small, highly connected, cluster of nodes.\n\nI strongly advise people who are not me to use this sort of scheme, so\nthat I may enjoy the benefits of robbing you blind.\n\n\n.... But really, saying \"some sort of DHT\" without basically\npresenting a working implementation that demonstrates the feasibility\nof solving the very difficulty attack resistance problems these\nschemes have basically triggers my time-wasting-idiot filter. (Or\nlikewise, presenting a fixed network structure that would have a nice\nsmall and easily identifiable min-cut...)\n\nI don't doubt I'm completely alone in this, though perhaps I'm more\nof a jerk about it. Even if your actual proposal might have some\nmerit you should be aware that every fool who has operated a\nbittorrent client has heard of \"DHT\" and, although they may not even\nunderstand what a hash table is, many have no reservation going around\nsuggesting them for _every_ distributed systems problem. Want to scale\nmatrix multiples? DHT! Want to validate bitcoin blocks? DHT! Network\nsyncup slow (because It's bound on validation related local IO)? DHT!\nI suggest people solve the real problems first, then worry what name\nto give the solutions. ;)\n\nTo address gavin's tragedy of the commons concern, one useful feature\nwould being able to mutually authenticate a peer... then full nodes\ncould pick and choose which lite nodes they're willing to do (a lot\nof) hard work for. This would also be valuable because some modes of\nlite operation require non-zero trust of the full node being queried.",
"sig": "78dc4b6aff543197aee18edfd6704d5c0e62d474a4c6bebd343b7d9ff1c7125e3185d1dd2c0d44850a1b29ec59dffbc80fdaa4fe54091b968ac49caf61d63255"
}