Re: [bitcoin-dev] Solving the Scalability Problem Part II - Adam Shem-Tov - Adam Tamir Shem-Tov

From: Adam Tamir Shem-Tov <tshachaf@gmail•com>
To: Christian Riley <criley@gmail•com>
Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Solving the Scalability Problem Part II - Adam Shem-Tov
Date: Sun, 27 Aug 2017 01:26:15 +0300	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CACQPdjqwG9F0+9hbcP_kMf5gZr+DeATQs1TE_YekG_EDLvavqg@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <DEC1CF18-5425-41C2-88DF-399BD32CD6F1@gmail.com>

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 5088 bytes --]

Thank You Christian for your response.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=473.0 :  I dont see the relevance.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=52859.0 : This idea does not seem
to talking about trimming the full node. Trimming the full node is the key,
the full node is what keeps us secure from hackers. If it can be trimmed
without losing security, that would be good, that is what I am proposing.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=12376.0 : Same answer as 505.0.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=74559.15 : I think his proposal is
similar to mine, unfortunately for us his predictions were way off. He was
trying to fix this problem while believing that in the year 2020 the
blockchain would be 4GB!!! It is not his fault, his prediction was in 2011.
But you can see, by his prediction, which was rational at the time, was way
off. And it stresses my point, we need to fix this now. Too bad, no one
took him seriously back then, when the block chain i was 1GB.
*https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=56226.0
<https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=56226.0>*: Another guy with a
valid point, who was first acknowledged and then apparently ignored.
.
To summarize, this problem was brought up about 6 years ago, when the
blockchain was 1GB in size, Now it is about 140GB in size. I think it is
about time we stop ignoring this problem, and realize something needs to
change, or else the only full-nodes you will have will be with private
multi-million dollar companies, because no private citizen will have the
storage space to keep it. That would make bitcoin the worst decentralized
or uncentralized system in history.

On 27 August 2017 at 00:42, Christian Riley <criley@gmail•com> wrote:

> There have been a number of similar (identical?) proposals over the years,
> some were discussed in these threads:
> https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=56226.0
> https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=505.0
> https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=473.0
> https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=52859.0
> https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=12376.0
> https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=74559.15
>
>
> On Aug 26, 2017, at 5:01 PM, Adam Tamir Shem-Tov via bitcoin-dev <
> bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
> <B>Solving the Scalability Problem Part II</B>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> <BR>
> In the previous post I showed a way to minimize the blocks on the block
> chain, to lower the amount of space it takes on the hard drive, without
> losing any relevant information.
> I added a note, saying that the transaction chain needs to be rewritten,
> but I did not give much detail to it.<BR>
> Here is how that would work:<BR>
> <B>The Genesis Account:</B>
> -----------------------------------------<BR>
> The problem with changing the transaction and block chain, is that it
> cannot be done without knowing the private key of the sender of the of the
> funds for each account. There is however a way to circumvent that problem.
> That is to create a special account called the “Genesis Account”, this
> account’s Private Key and Public Key will be available to everyone.<BR>
> But this account will not be able to send or receive any funds in a normal
> block, it will be blocked--blacklisted. So no one can intentionally use it.
> The only time this account will be used is in the pruning block, a.k.a
> Exodus Block.<BR>
> When creating the new pruned block chain and transaction chain, all the
> funds that are now in accounts must be legitimate, and it would be
> difficult to legitimize them unless they were sent from a legitimate
> account, with a public key, and a private key which can be verified. That
> is where the Genesis account comes in. All funds in the Exodus Block will
> show as though they originated and were sent from the Genesis Account using
> its privatekey to generate each transaction.<BR>
> The funds which are sent, must match exactly the funds existing in the
> most updated ledger in block 1000 (the last block as stated in my previous
> post).<BR>
> In this way the Exodus Block can be verified, and the Genesis Account
> cannot give free money to anyway, because if someone tried to, it would
> fail verification.<BR>
>
> <BR>
> Now the next problem is that the number of Bitcoins keeps expanding and so
> the funds in the Genesis Account need to expand as well. That can be done
> by showing as though this account is the account which is mining the coins,
> and it will be the only account in the Exodus Block which “mines” the
> coins, and receives the mining bonus. In the Exodus Block all coins mined
> by the real miners will show as though they were mined by Genesis and sent
> to the miners through a regular transaction.
>
> <BR>
>
> Adam Shem-Tov
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 8026 bytes --]