[bitcoin-dev] A Proposed Compromise to the Block Size Limit
jameson.lopp at gmail.com
Sat Jun 27 18:02:05 UTC 2015
On Sat, Jun 27, 2015 at 1:34 PM, Peter Todd <pete at petertodd.org> wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 27, 2015 at 01:25:14PM -0400, Michael Naber wrote:
> > Global network consensus means that there is global network recognition
> > that a particular transaction has occurred and is irreversible. The
> > off-chain solutions you describe, while probably useful for other
> > do not exhibit this characteristic and so they are not global network
> > consensus networks.
> Hub-and-spoke payment channels and the Lightning network are not
> off-chain solutions, they are ways to more efficiently use on-chain
> transactions to achive the goal of moving assets from point a to point
> b, resulting in more economic transactions being done with fewer - but
> not zero! - blockchain transactions.
> Off-chain transaction systems such as Changetip allow economic
> transactions to happen with no blockchain transactions at all.
> > Bitcoin Core scales as O(N), where N is the number of transactions. Can
> > do better than this while still achieving global consensus?
> No, Bitcoin the network scales with O(n^2) with your above criteria, as
> each node creates k transactions, thus each node has to verify k*n
> transactions, resulting in O(n^2) total work.
> For Bitcoin to have O(n) scaling you have to assume that the number of
> validation nodes doesn't scale with the number of users, thus resulting
> in a system where users trust others to do validation for them. That is
> not a global consensus system; that's a trust-based system.
Why does it matter what the "total work" of the network is? Anyone who is
participating as a node on the network only cares about the resources
required to run their own node, not the resources everyone else needs to
run their nodes.
Also, no assumption needed, it is quite clear that the number of nodes is
not scaling along with the number of users. If anything it appears to be
> There's nothing inherently wrong with that, but why change Bitcoin
> itself into a trust-based system, when you can preserve the global
> consensus functionality, and built a trust-based system on top of it?
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the bitcoin-dev