Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Tree-chains preliminary summary

From: Peter Todd <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2014 09:49:18 -0400

On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 08:45:00AM -0400, Gavin Andresen wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 8:28 AM, Peter Todd <[email-masked]> 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