sipa changed the topic of #bitcoin-wizards to: This channel is for discussing theoretical ideas with regard to cryptocurrencies, not about short-term Bitcoin development | http://bitcoin.ninja/ | This channel is logged. | For logs and more information, visit http://bitcoin.ninja
Newyorkadam has quit [Quit: Newyorkadam]
luke-jr has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
luke-jr has joined #bitcoin-wizards
rusty has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
Chris_Stewart_5 has joined #bitcoin-wizards
Chris_Stewart_5 has quit [Ping timeout: 248 seconds]
chjj has quit [Ping timeout: 248 seconds]
dnaleor has quit [Quit: Leaving]
chjj has joined #bitcoin-wizards
CheckDavid has quit [Quit: Connection closed for inactivity]
jb55 has quit [Ping timeout: 248 seconds]
hdevalence has quit [Ping timeout: 248 seconds]
Ylbam has quit [Quit: Connection closed for inactivity]
Belkaar has quit [Ping timeout: 248 seconds]
Belkaar has joined #bitcoin-wizards
Belkaar has joined #bitcoin-wizards
Belkaar has quit [Changing host]
RubenSomsen has joined #bitcoin-wizards
rusty has joined #bitcoin-wizards
interne7y has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
thrmo is now known as farrightbiggot
jtimon has quit [Ping timeout: 248 seconds]
farrightbiggot is now known as thrmo
StopAndDecrypt_ has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
StopAndDecrypt has joined #bitcoin-wizards
StopAndDecrypt_ has joined #bitcoin-wizards
StopAndDecrypt has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
thrmo is now known as DurrutiColumn
_Sam--- has quit [Ping timeout: 248 seconds]
_Sam--- has joined #bitcoin-wizards
_Sam--- has quit [Client Quit]
DurrutiColumn is now known as thrmo
StopAndDecrypt_ has quit []
d9b4bef9 has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
d9b4bef9 has joined #bitcoin-wizards
betawaffle has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
smilpent has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
RubenSomsen has quit [Quit: Leaving]
betawaffle has joined #bitcoin-wizards
Newyorkadam has joined #bitcoin-wizards
Cory has quit [Ping timeout: 250 seconds]
Cory has joined #bitcoin-wizards
oleganza has joined #bitcoin-wizards
legogris has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
legogris has joined #bitcoin-wizards
TheSeven has quit [Ping timeout: 258 seconds]
Murch has quit [Quit: Snoozing.]
TheSeven has joined #bitcoin-wizards
Newyorkadam has quit [Quit: Newyorkadam]
Newyorkadam has joined #bitcoin-wizards
thrmo has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
oleganza has quit [Quit: oleganza]
_whitelogger has joined #bitcoin-wizards
rusty has quit [Ping timeout: 248 seconds]
TheSeven has quit [Ping timeout: 255 seconds]
[7] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
worstadmin has quit [Quit: Connection closed for inactivity]
oleganza has joined #bitcoin-wizards
oleganza has quit [Client Quit]
intcat has quit [*.net *.split]
ghost43 has quit [*.net *.split]
arubi has quit [*.net *.split]
intcat has joined #bitcoin-wizards
ghost43 has joined #bitcoin-wizards
arubi has joined #bitcoin-wizards
oleganza has joined #bitcoin-wizards
oleganza has quit [Quit: oleganza]
Newyorkadam_ has joined #bitcoin-wizards
d_t has quit [Ping timeout: 255 seconds]
Newyorkadam has quit [Ping timeout: 268 seconds]
Newyorkadam_ is now known as Newyorkadam
d_t has joined #bitcoin-wizards
Fugazi_ has quit []
d_t has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
Ylbam has joined #bitcoin-wizards
Newyorkadam has quit [Quit: Newyorkadam]
d9b4bef9 has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
d9b4bef9 has joined #bitcoin-wizards
d_t has joined #bitcoin-wizards
d_t has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
interne7y has joined #bitcoin-wizards
Newyorkadam has joined #bitcoin-wizards
buenz_ has joined #bitcoin-wizards
buenz_ has left #bitcoin-wizards [#bitcoin-wizards]
benehsv has joined #bitcoin-wizards
benehsv has quit [Quit: Page closed]
sn0wmonster is now known as sn0w
sn0w is now known as sn0wmosnter
sn0wmosnter is now known as sn0wmonster
roconnor_ has quit [Ping timeout: 250 seconds]
_whitelogger has joined #bitcoin-wizards
jtimon has joined #bitcoin-wizards
leonidaz0r has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
Guest54516 has quit [Quit: Connection closed for inactivity]
interne7y has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
pavle_ has joined #bitcoin-wizards
pavle__ has joined #bitcoin-wizards
pavle_ has quit [Quit: Leaving]
deusexbeer has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
<waxwing>
andytoshi, so i'm curious about the fiat-shamir part; i have a vague understanding of 'hash the prover-verifier transcript up to that point', but i note that your and buenz's code hashes L, R, P, and specifically the L, R values at that iteration. is there some specific way to figure out/justify that it's exactly that set of data that needs to be hashed here?
<waxwing>
(here talking about the inner product argument ofc)
deusexbeer has joined #bitcoin-wizards
CheckDavid has joined #bitcoin-wizards
jephalien has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
Chris_Stewart_5 has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<andytoshi>
my code hashes the previous hash as well
roconnor_ has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<andytoshi>
anyway, the set of data that needs to be hashed is specifically everything that had been communicated up to that point
<waxwing>
right, thanks, makes sense. and including the previous hash is a logical way of doing that.
roconnor_ has quit [Quit: Konversation terminated!]
Chris_Stewart_5 has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
<andytoshi>
yup
AaronvanW has joined #bitcoin-wizards
Guest54516 has joined #bitcoin-wizards
jb55 has joined #bitcoin-wizards
Fugazi has joined #bitcoin-wizards
meshcollider has quit [Quit: Connection closed for inactivity]
leonidaz0r has joined #bitcoin-wizards
dnaleor has joined #bitcoin-wizards
arubi has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
arubi has joined #bitcoin-wizards
daszorz has joined #bitcoin-wizards
pavle__ has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
Newyorkadam has quit [Quit: Newyorkadam]
Noldorin has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
BCBot has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
d9b4bef9 has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
dnaleor has joined #bitcoin-wizards
jb55 has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
jb55 has joined #bitcoin-wizards
FourRunner9000 has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
cdecker has joined #bitcoin-wizards
Emcy has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
jb55 has quit [Ping timeout: 248 seconds]
Emcy has joined #bitcoin-wizards
jb55 has joined #bitcoin-wizards
daszorz has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
jb55 has quit [Quit: WeeChat 1.9]
jb55 has joined #bitcoin-wizards
chartractegg has joined #bitcoin-wizards
chartractegg has left #bitcoin-wizards [#bitcoin-wizards]
mxg has joined #bitcoin-wizards
mxg is now known as maxgiraldo
daszorz has joined #bitcoin-wizards
d_t has joined #bitcoin-wizards
ecurrencyhodler has joined #bitcoin-wizards
Aranjedeath has joined #bitcoin-wizards
chjj has quit [Ping timeout: 255 seconds]
daszorz has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
maxgiraldo has quit [Quit: afk]
leonidaz0r has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
mxg has joined #bitcoin-wizards
mxg has quit [Client Quit]
meshcollider has joined #bitcoin-wizards
d9b4bef9 has joined #bitcoin-wizards
loulepton has joined #bitcoin-wizards
ghost43 has quit [Ping timeout: 248 seconds]
ghost43 has joined #bitcoin-wizards
dnaleor has quit [Quit: Leaving]
scalar has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<scalar>
A consumer 1 TB SSD can do 90,000 random read or writes per second. This is enough for billions of people to make a few TXs per second. I don't understand where the UTXO bottleneck is. Can someone explain?
<scalar>
* a few TXs per day, I mean
<scalar>
I'm trying to understand the scaling debate, and people keep saying the problem is that if there were billions of users, the UTXO set would be 1 TB+ in size. But I don't see why that's a problem.
<scalar>
I was told to come here and ask the wizards.
leonidaz0r has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<sipa>
just keeping uo with transactions in the chain is not nearly enough
<sipa>
validation time needs to be orders of magnitude faster than inter block time
<sipa>
if you don't want propagation delay
<scalar>
Just for miners, right? Non-mining nodes just need to keep up, correct?
<sipa>
yes and no... the propagation speed across the public p2p network sets a maximum bound on what advantages a large miner can have over a smaller one
<scalar>
Do you mean propagation speed for transactions or blocks?
<sipa>
blocms
<sipa>
blocks
<sipa>
miners don't need to incur a propagation delay when they build on top of their own blocks
<sipa>
so larger miners benefit from propagation delay on the network being larger
<scalar>
And you think UTXO lookups when the UTXO set becomes very large would be the bottleneck?
<sipa>
possibly
<sipa>
we very heavily rely on caching recent UTXO entries in bitcoin core
<sipa>
even on SSDs
<scalar>
But an SSD that can do 90,000 random IOPS seems very fast.
<sipa>
that's only 90 txins per ms
<sipa>
blocks have thousands of inputs
<scalar>
Right, but I understand that most transactions are validated prior to receiving the block, thanks to compact blocks (and later maybe Graphene)
<sipa>
right, but that only works in non-adverserial settings
<sipa>
when miners don't produce blocks full of previously unknown transactions
<scalar>
You mean miners intentionally making blocks that validate / propagate slowly?
<sipa>
right, it's not an attack we've seen
nickler has quit [Quit: leaving]
<sipa>
but it's a totally plausible variant of selfish minknh
Newyorkadam has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<scalar>
How is that possible to prevent though? If I wanted to make a block I mined propagate slowly, I could just wait for a while before sending it, or send it out slowly.
<sipa>
yes, that's a fair point
nickler has joined #bitcoin-wizards
Aranjedeath has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds]
<scalar>
OK it sounds like my thinking was correct regarding the UTXO set. People were saying that it would cost $20,000 for enough memory to store it at scale, which seemed like nonsense.
<scalar>
And it is nonsense.
<sipa>
i haven't seen that number
<sipa>
i'm more worried about unbounded growth, though
<scalar>
I think it came from some talk by the Australian who claimed to be Satoshi.
<scalar>
I would imagine that the UTXO set size is most strongly related to the number of users. An equilibrium would be reached where outputs were destroyed at the same rate they were created (plus perhaps a bit due to lost coins).
<sipa>
long term, i'd like to see a model where the UTXO set does not actually impact resource costs
<scalar>
Even if every person in the world had 10 outputs, that's still just 80 billion entries. Doesn't see too tough really.
<sipa>
but why would it not grow beyond 10?
<sipa>
there is not really an incentive for that
<scalar>
I'm not sure what the equilibrium would be, but wouldn't there have to be an equilibrium somewhere, at the point where outputs are destroyed at the same rate they are created.
<sipa>
i don't see why there would be an equilibrium at all
<sipa>
based on fee pressume, some utxos are not economical to spend
<scalar>
Logically then, doesn't that imply that coins will continue to be split until everything is 1 sat dust?
<scalar>
I guess I just don't see that. It would be interesting to look at real data from wallet to see what the "equilibrium number of outputs" is after long term use.
<sipa>
the spike around summer '15 was a spam attack that resulted in huge amounts of utxos that are not economical to spend
<scalar>
Which makes sense, because we're going users. But if the number of users were fixed, then that chart would flat line eventually (plus perhaps a bit due to lost coins).
<scalar>
*going = gaining
<scalar>
I need to think more about your speed argument for miners, but in terms of the size of the UTXO set, I really don't see it ever been a problem, unless there's some stong mechanism for unbound growth. But I don't think there is.
<sipa>
wrt miners, we need to avoid situations where there validation is slow enough that miners are willing to take the risk to forego it
dnaleor has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<sipa>
which unfortunately is already happening - many miners listen to each other's pools and build on top of the work advertized there before they've even seen the block on the network themselves
<sipa>
which resulted in e.g. a pretty long fork at the time of BIP66's activation
<sipa>
because one minority miner built an invalid block (according to the new rules), and then a majority of larger miners (which themselves did implement the new rule) started building blocks on top of that invalid ones - while their own nodes never saw the new invalid block
<sipa>
an incentive for miners to not validate is pretty dangerous to the network, as at the very least it undermines (ha!) SPV security
<sipa>
and worst of all, it's not really observable to what extent it happens, until it is too late
<sipa>
you can of course argue that miners easily have access to funds to afford much faster hardware than network nodes that don't have any intent more than just keeping up
<scalar>
Yes, I agree completely. But what is nice is that they can only mine empty blocks, and so forgo fees, if they don't validate. As fees become a larger part of the reward, there will be more incentive to validate.
<sipa>
mining empty blocks on top of an invalid block is still bad for the network
<sipa>
i do agree that fees taking over will improve thid
<scalar>
I agree. I just mean more fees make it less likely to happen
jtimon has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
jtimon has joined #bitcoin-wizards
Noldorin has joined #bitcoin-wizards
laurentmt has joined #bitcoin-wizards
rusty has joined #bitcoin-wizards
scalar has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
PaulCapestany has joined #bitcoin-wizards
jb55 has quit [Ping timeout: 268 seconds]
AaronvanW has quit [Remote host closed the connection]