{"type":"rich","version":"1.0","author_name":"npub1vtwuk4rjyj6zrq3tv2z9lvdm6a7g8zujf0gz9q2vljlztdaqw36sjjsjpg","author_url":"https://nostr.ae/npub1vtwuk4rjyj6zrq3tv2z9lvdm6a7g8zujf0gz9q2vljlztdaqw36sjjsjpg","provider_name":"njump","provider_url":"https://nostr.ae","html":"📅 Original date posted:2015-05-06\n📝 Original message:On Wed, May 6, 2015 at 5:12 PM, Matt Corallo \u003cbitcoin-list at bluematt.me\u003e wrote:\n\u003e the maximum block size. However, there hasnt been any discussion on this\n\u003e mailing list in several years as far as I can tell.\n\nWell, there has been significant public discussion in #bitcoin-wizards\non irc.freenode.net which is available in public logs, specifically\nabout why increasing the max block size is kicking the can down the\nroad while possibly compromising blockchain security. There were many\nexcellent objections that were raised that, sadly, I see are not\nreferenced at all in the recent media blitz. Frankly I can't help but\nfeel that if contributions, like those from #bitcoin-wizards, have\nbeen ignored in lieu of technical analysis, and the absence of\ndiscussion on this mailing list, that I feel perhaps there are other\nsubtle and extremely important technical details that are completely\nabsent from this--and other-- proposals. I have some rather general\nthoughts to offer.\n\nSecured decentralization is the most important and most interesting\nproperty of bitcoin. Everything else is rather trivial and could be\nachieved millions of times more efficiently with conventional\ntechnology. Our technical work should be informed by the technical\nnature of the system we have constructed.\n\nI suspect that as bitcoin continues to grow in all dimensions and\nmetrics, that we will see an unending wave of those who are excited by\nthe idea of Something Different in the face of archaic, crumbling\nsoftware and procedures in the rest of the financial world. Money has\nfound its way into every aspect of human life. There's no doubt in my\nmind that bitcoin will always see the most extreme campaigns and the\nmost extreme misunderstandings. Like moths to a flame or water in the\ndesert, almost everyone is excited by ANY status quo change\nwhatsoever. This is something that we have to be vigilante about,\nbecause their excitement is motivation to do excellent work, not\nsimply any work. For some who are excited about general status quo\nchanges that bitcoin represents, they may not mind if bitcoin\ndecentralization disappears and is replaced with just a handful of\ncentralized nodes. Whereas for development purposes we must hold\nourselves to extremely high standards before proposing changes,\nespecially to the public, that have the potential to be unsafe and\neconomically unsafe. We have examples from NASA about how to engineer\nextremely fault tolerant systems, and we have examples from Linux\nabout how to have high standards in open-source projects. Safety is\nabsolutely critical, even in the face of seemingly irrational\nexcuberance of others who want to scale to trillions of daily coffee\ntransactions individually stored forever in the blockchain.\n\nWhen designing bitcoin or even some other system, an important design\ntarget is what the system should be capable of. How many transactions\nshould the system perform? What is the correct number of transactions\nfor a healthy, modern civilization to perform every day? And how fast\nshould that (not) grow? Should we allow for 2 billion trillion coffee\ntransactions every day, or what about 100 trillion transactions per\nsecond? I suspect that these sorts of questions are entirely\nunanswerable and boring. So in the absence of technical targets to\nreach during the design phase, I suspect that Jeff Garzik was right\nwhen he pointed out a few months ago that bitcoin is good at\nsettlement and clearing. There are many potential technical solutions\nfor aggregating millions (trillions?) of transactions into tiny\nbundles. As a small proof-of-concept, imagine two parties sending\ntransactions back and forth 100 million times. Instead of recording\nevery transaction, you could record the start state and the end state,\nand end up with two transactions or less. That's a 100 million fold,\nwithout modifying max block size and without potentially compromising\nsecured decentralization.\n\nThe MIT group should listen up and get to work figuring out how to\nmeasure decentralization and its security :-). Maybe we should be\ncollectively pestering Andrew Miller to do this, too. No pressure,\ndude. Getting this measurement right would be really beneficial\nbecause we would have a more academic and technical understanding to\nwork with. I would also characterize this as high priority next to the\n\"formally verified correctness proofs for Script and\nlibbitcoinconsensus\".\n\nAlso, I think that getting this out in the open on this mailing list\nis an excellent step forward.\n\n- Bryan\nhttp://heybryan.org/\n1 512 203 0507"}