Author

Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. - page 401. (Read 2032286 times)

legendary
Activity: 2968
Merit: 1198
April 27, 2015, 05:08:16 PM
I guess I don't understand. You've verified everything up to the time you exit the network. You have an  up to date UTXO set and the last 2016 blocks or so. When you return, you can  download all the blocks from the longest candidate chain and verify them working forward from the UTXO set , can you not?

Yes, that's fine provided there are nodes in the network that can serve you the blocks you haven't verified yourself. A brand new node of course needs to verify every transaction in every block all the way back to the genesis block (to keep the current level of security). 




I'm very comfortable with that fact. There will always be enough of us that will hold copies of the full blockchain out of purity or shear paranoia.

Yes I agree. I would feel a bit better if there were an incentive to do it, but that isn't hard to imagine. Something like a small payment per block served should be enough to incentivize people to hold it (and also to share it when needed).

legendary
Activity: 1400
Merit: 1013
April 27, 2015, 04:58:29 PM
Yes, that's fine provided there are nodes in the network that can serve you the blocks you haven't verified yourself. A brand new node of course needs to verify every transaction in every block all the way back to the genesis block (to keep the current level of security).
I'd like to think it's within the realm of possibility to create a ZKP that a given set of headers is only composed of the hashes of valid Bitcoin transactions.

If such a proof existed, it would be safe for the entire network to discard the old history.
legendary
Activity: 1764
Merit: 1002
April 27, 2015, 04:56:57 PM
I guess I don't understand. You've verified everything up to the time you exit the network. You have an  up to date UTXO set and the last 2016 blocks or so. When you return, you can  download all the blocks from the longest candidate chain and verify them working forward from the UTXO set , can you not?

Yes, that's fine provided there are nodes in the network that can serve you the blocks you haven't verified yourself. A brand new node of course needs to verify every transaction in every block all the way back to the genesis block (to keep the current level of security). 




I'm very comfortable with that fact. There will always be enough of us that will hold copies of the full blockchain out of purity or shear paranoia.
legendary
Activity: 1162
Merit: 1010
April 27, 2015, 04:50:46 PM
I guess I don't understand. You've verified everything up to the time you exit the network. You have an  up to date UTXO set and the last 2016 blocks or so. When you return, you can  download all the blocks from the longest candidate chain and verify them working forward from the UTXO set , can you not?

Yes, that's fine provided there are nodes in the network that can serve you the blocks you haven't verified yourself. A brand new node of course needs to verify every transaction in every block all the way back to the genesis block (to keep the current level of security). 


legendary
Activity: 1764
Merit: 1002
April 27, 2015, 04:41:07 PM

Bitcoin without pruning is trustless by design (though maybe not 100% in practice). You can verify everything yourself. With pruning it is not trustless even by design.

You keep saying this. Why?

Because trustlessness is the foundation upon which Bitcoin is built.

My node could leave the network for a few months, and, upon rejoining, determine the state of the ledger without requiring any new information beyond what is encoded in the candidate blockchains.  To do this, my node considers all valid chains and selects as the "best chain" the one with the highest cumulative work.

If it was not possible to verify every transaction (including the pruned ones) then how would my node know that nothing "funny" occurred while it was not connected?  Maybe some coins got moved without valid signatures?  [That being said, I'm still supportive of pruning--it's just that it must always remain possible for nodes to verify all transactions right back to the genesis block].  

Remember, this trustlessness is one property that separates a PoW system from a PoS system.  For example, a Nxt node needs new information upon rejoining the network (what they call economic clustering) in addition to what's encoded in the candidate blockchains.  I think this "not-quite-trustless-by-design" property of PoS is what Vitalik et al. refer to as "weak subjectivity."

I guess I don't understand. You've verified everything up to the time you exit the network. You have an  up to date UTXO set and the last 2016 blocks or so. When you return, you can  download all the blocks from the longest candidate chain and verify them working forward from the UTXO set , can you not?
legendary
Activity: 2968
Merit: 1198
April 27, 2015, 04:17:45 PM
That being said, I'm still supportive of pruning--it's just that it must always remain possible for nodes to verify all transactions right back to the genesis block

Agree, in case that was not clear from my earlier comments.
legendary
Activity: 1162
Merit: 1010
April 27, 2015, 04:07:25 PM

Bitcoin without pruning is trustless by design (though maybe not 100% in practice). You can verify everything yourself. With pruning it is not trustless even by design.

You keep saying this. Why?

Because trustlessness is the foundation upon which Bitcoin is built.

My node could leave the network for a few months, and, upon rejoining, determine the state of the ledger without requiring any new information beyond what is encoded in the candidate blockchains.  To do this, my node considers all valid chains and selects as the "best chain" the one with the highest cumulative work.

If it was not possible to verify every transaction (including the pruned ones) then how would my node know that nothing "funny" occurred while it was not connected?  Maybe some coins got moved without valid signatures?  [That being said, I'm still supportive of pruning--it's just that it must always remain possible for nodes to verify all transactions right back to the genesis block].  

Remember, this trustlessness is one property that separates a PoW system from a PoS system.  For example, a Nxt node needs new information upon rejoining the network (what they call economic clustering) in addition to what's encoded in the candidate blockchains.  I think this "not-quite-trustless-by-design" property of PoS is what Vitalik et al. refer to as "weak subjectivity."
legendary
Activity: 1764
Merit: 1002
April 27, 2015, 03:49:23 PM
If you are a new user why would you want to reverify transactions you don't care about?

1. You might want to know that transactions aren't violating the rules that would compromise the integrity of the system (and therefore the value of your own coins).

2. How do you know the coins you receive are real? In theory you could trace back only the coins you receive in an SPV-line manner, but as coins get split and combined this seems in practice to grow to much or all of the chain before long.

3. Maybe you in fact don't care and would find a higher trust level acceptable.

A new user wouldn't have any coins yet.... they would first need an address. So #1 doesn't really apply they are trusting the node they are connected to (blockchain foundation or something)... the people are care about security would fully verify. Those that import their pvt key would reverify too.

You trust the foundation in the same way that you must trust that they won't commit bad code that may compromise the value of their coins aswell.

I think you don't understand the concept of trustlessness. The design of bitcoin doesn't trust a foundation. Yes, in practice we have to trust the developers today because the system isn't fully built yet, although maybe that's not true. If there were no more commits ever, it still might continue to work indefinitely in some manner (obviously blocks size limit would be an issue, so if it did continue to function it would be some kind of gold-like backing asset, not transactional).

Bitcoin without pruning is trustless by design (though maybe not 100% in practice). You can verify everything yourself. With pruning it is not trustless even by design.


You keep saying this. Why?
legendary
Activity: 2968
Merit: 1198
April 27, 2015, 03:37:10 PM
If you are a new user why would you want to reverify transactions you don't care about?

1. You might want to know that transactions aren't violating the rules that would compromise the integrity of the system (and therefore the value of your own coins).

2. How do you know the coins you receive are real? In theory you could trace back only the coins you receive in an SPV-line manner, but as coins get split and combined this seems in practice to grow to much or all of the chain before long.

3. Maybe you in fact don't care and would find a higher trust level acceptable.

A new user wouldn't have any coins yet.... they would first need an address. So #1 doesn't really apply they are trusting the node they are connected to (blockchain foundation or something)... the people are care about security would fully verify. Those that import their pvt key would reverify too.

You trust the foundation in the same way that you must trust that they won't commit bad code that may compromise the value of their coins aswell.

I think you don't understand the concept of trustlessness. The design of bitcoin doesn't trust a foundation. Yes, in practice we have to trust the developers today because the system isn't fully built yet, although maybe that's not true. If there were no more commits ever, it still might continue to work indefinitely in some manner (obviously blocks size limit would be an issue, so if it did continue to function it would be some kind of gold-like backing asset, not transactional).

Bitcoin without pruning is trustless by design (though maybe not 100% in practice). You can verify everything yourself. With pruning it is not trustless even by design.
legendary
Activity: 2044
Merit: 1005
April 27, 2015, 02:58:47 PM
If you are a new user why would you want to reverify transactions you don't care about?

1. You might want to know that transactions aren't violating the rules that would compromise the integrity of the system (and therefore the value of your own coins).

2. How do you know the coins you receive are real? In theory you could trace back only the coins you receive in an SPV-line manner, but as coins get split and combined this seems in practice to grow to much or all of the chain before long.

3. Maybe you in fact don't care and would find a higher trust level acceptable.

A new user wouldn't have any coins yet.... they would first need an address. So #1 doesn't really apply they are trusting the node they are connected to (blockchain foundation or something)... the people are care about security would fully verify. Those that import their pvt key would reverify too.

You trust the foundation in the same way that you must trust that they won't commit bad code that may compromise the value of their coins aswell.
legendary
Activity: 2968
Merit: 1198
April 27, 2015, 02:48:49 PM
If you are a new user why would you want to reverify transactions you don't care about?

1. You might want to know that transactions aren't violating the rules that would compromise the integrity of the system (and therefore the value of your own coins).

2. How do you know the coins you receive are real? In theory you could trace back only the coins you receive in an SPV-line manner, but as coins get split and combined this seems in practice to grow to much or all of the chain before long.

3. Maybe you in fact don't care and would find a higher trust level acceptable.
legendary
Activity: 2044
Merit: 1005
April 27, 2015, 02:40:43 PM
Did you see the latest commit on pruning? Allows you to specify max disk usage and it prunes old blocks.. validates by reindexing which downloads all chain then prunes. You check it out? I wonder what the point is if youhave todownload the full chain anyway why prune? The main bottleneck is the lenghty sync time not storage space.
I also noticed that it has logic to stop sending blocks requested that have been pruned. So there is assumption that there are full nodes out there to give you the block that others have pruned.

There's also a plan to let you keep certain block ranges and network protocol addition to advertise which parts a node has. That way, full block data can be kept in a distributed fashion while nodes can still run (and contribute more meaningfully than just as a relay and utxo set provider) even with disk space limits.

In fact with that it would be theoretically possible to run the network (fully trustable) without any node having storage space for the whole blockchain.
Kinda like bittorrent ?

Not exactly. BitTorrent distributes the entire file to all peers and in fact it actively tries to distribute pieces with a low count more quickly. In this case, not every node would have every block by design. It's a bit more dangerous what is being proposed. An attacker can prevent new nodes from syncing by finding all of the nodes that have a particular piece of the blockchain (whichever piece is rarest) and attacking them.

Still, as long as there is one good copy of the blockchain in the world, it can always be sent out again. So I don't think we need to worry too much. Some people will still run nodes without pruning.

Isn't the pruning approach Satoshi alluded to in his whitepaper #7 (https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf) the better approach? The hash of the block remains so full verification is still possible after pruning.. blocks are still around just the spent tx's are gone... so you can reindex to get them again if you wish.

No, unless you can verify the flow of transactions yourself you are ultimately trusting the miners. They put the transaction in the block; the hash proves that. But how do you know they were not cheating when they did? Also, you don't know that they didn't prune something they shouldn't. Maybe you got a payment, and the miner doesn't want you to see it (or the government told him to remove it), so they prune it (retaining only the hash, but the block is still valid).

Satoshi's pruning is basically the same in terms of trust as SPV.

In the back of my mind im still intertwining the concepts of bandwidth/time required for sync versus storage requirements of the blockchain. The bandwidth/time was solved by SPV and perhaps ultimately for desktop users be useful to have a lite wallet download which would be in SPV node and have a default trust of a bitcoin foundation node or something configurable OOTB.. so avg joe can simply click on it and run, but with the fine line that its only for new users who don't already have a wallet.

The storage which isn't really that big of a problem but solves being able to store on smaller flash disks is now solved by the pruning of old blocks of spent outputs.

Correct?

The current pruning scheme that is implemented compromises nothing in terms of trust. You receive the entire blockchain and verify it completely, but you only keep some N recent blocks (or maybe specified amount of storage? i'm not sure). It uses the same bandwidth as before, but less storage.

This doesn't really address where those old blocks will be stored, so that is being worked on as discussed in the last several posts.

If you want to reduce bandwidth you are going to end up with various weaker models in terms of trust because since you aren't receiving the entire chain, you obviously can't verify everything yourself. You end up needing to trust somebody somehow.

SPV is fine for end users, and it has pretty much the minimum possible bandwidth usage. It does have some privacy compromises because you have to tell the nodes which addresses you are interested in (or at least a superset of that).

Satoshi's pruning is ultimately similar to SPV in terms of trust (you are trusting the miners) but has intermediate bandwidth usage (less than full trustless verification and more than SPV) and unlike SPV does allow mining.




If you are a new user why would you want to reverify transactions you don't care about?
legendary
Activity: 1764
Merit: 1002
April 27, 2015, 02:36:15 PM
Not normally a fan of Kashmir Hill but this was well written:

http://fusion.net/story/125475/ai-weiwei-jacob-appelbaum-and-laura-poitras/
legendary
Activity: 2968
Merit: 1198
April 27, 2015, 02:33:13 PM
Did you see the latest commit on pruning? Allows you to specify max disk usage and it prunes old blocks.. validates by reindexing which downloads all chain then prunes. You check it out? I wonder what the point is if youhave todownload the full chain anyway why prune? The main bottleneck is the lenghty sync time not storage space.
I also noticed that it has logic to stop sending blocks requested that have been pruned. So there is assumption that there are full nodes out there to give you the block that others have pruned.

There's also a plan to let you keep certain block ranges and network protocol addition to advertise which parts a node has. That way, full block data can be kept in a distributed fashion while nodes can still run (and contribute more meaningfully than just as a relay and utxo set provider) even with disk space limits.

In fact with that it would be theoretically possible to run the network (fully trustable) without any node having storage space for the whole blockchain.
Kinda like bittorrent ?

Not exactly. BitTorrent distributes the entire file to all peers and in fact it actively tries to distribute pieces with a low count more quickly. In this case, not every node would have every block by design. It's a bit more dangerous what is being proposed. An attacker can prevent new nodes from syncing by finding all of the nodes that have a particular piece of the blockchain (whichever piece is rarest) and attacking them.

Still, as long as there is one good copy of the blockchain in the world, it can always be sent out again. So I don't think we need to worry too much. Some people will still run nodes without pruning.

Isn't the pruning approach Satoshi alluded to in his whitepaper #7 (https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf) the better approach? The hash of the block remains so full verification is still possible after pruning.. blocks are still around just the spent tx's are gone... so you can reindex to get them again if you wish.

No, unless you can verify the flow of transactions yourself you are ultimately trusting the miners. They put the transaction in the block; the hash proves that. But how do you know they were not cheating when they did? Also, you don't know that they didn't prune something they shouldn't. Maybe you got a payment, and the miner doesn't want you to see it (or the government told him to remove it), so they prune it (retaining only the hash, but the block is still valid).

Satoshi's pruning is basically the same in terms of trust as SPV.

In the back of my mind im still intertwining the concepts of bandwidth/time required for sync versus storage requirements of the blockchain. The bandwidth/time was solved by SPV and perhaps ultimately for desktop users be useful to have a lite wallet download which would be in SPV node and have a default trust of a bitcoin foundation node or something configurable OOTB.. so avg joe can simply click on it and run, but with the fine line that its only for new users who don't already have a wallet.

The storage which isn't really that big of a problem but solves being able to store on smaller flash disks is now solved by the pruning of old blocks of spent outputs.

Correct?

The current pruning scheme that is implemented compromises nothing in terms of trust. You receive the entire blockchain and verify it completely, but you only keep some N recent blocks (or maybe specified amount of storage? i'm not sure). It uses the same bandwidth as before, but less storage.

This doesn't really address where those old blocks will be stored, so that is being worked on as discussed in the last several posts.

If you want to reduce bandwidth you are going to end up with various weaker models in terms of trust because since you aren't receiving the entire chain, you obviously can't verify everything yourself. You end up needing to trust somebody somehow.

SPV is fine for end users, and it has pretty much the minimum possible bandwidth usage. It does have some privacy compromises because you have to tell the nodes which addresses you are interested in (or at least a superset of that).

Satoshi's pruning is ultimately similar to SPV in terms of trust (you are trusting the miners) but has intermediate bandwidth usage (less than full trustless verification and more than SPV) and unlike SPV does allow mining.


legendary
Activity: 2044
Merit: 1005
April 27, 2015, 02:20:13 PM
Did you see the latest commit on pruning? Allows you to specify max disk usage and it prunes old blocks.. validates by reindexing which downloads all chain then prunes. You check it out? I wonder what the point is if youhave todownload the full chain anyway why prune? The main bottleneck is the lenghty sync time not storage space.
I also noticed that it has logic to stop sending blocks requested that have been pruned. So there is assumption that there are full nodes out there to give you the block that others have pruned.

There's also a plan to let you keep certain block ranges and network protocol addition to advertise which parts a node has. That way, full block data can be kept in a distributed fashion while nodes can still run (and contribute more meaningfully than just as a relay and utxo set provider) even with disk space limits.

In fact with that it would be theoretically possible to run the network (fully trustable) without any node having storage space for the whole blockchain.
Kinda like bittorrent ?

Not exactly. BitTorrent distributes the entire file to all peers and in fact it actively tries to distribute pieces with a low count more quickly. In this case, not every node would have every block by design. It's a bit more dangerous what is being proposed. An attacker can prevent new nodes from syncing by finding all of the nodes that have a particular piece of the blockchain (whichever piece is rarest) and attacking them.

Still, as long as there is one good copy of the blockchain in the world, it can always be sent out again. So I don't think we need to worry too much. Some people will still run nodes without pruning.

Isn't the pruning approach Satoshi alluded to in his whitepaper #7 (https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf) the better approach? The hash of the block remains so full verification is still possible after pruning.. blocks are still around just the spent tx's are gone... so you can reindex to get them again if you wish.

No, unless you can verify the flow of transactions yourself you are ultimately trusting the miners. They put the transaction in the block; the hash proves that. But how do you know they were not cheating when they did? Also, you don't know that they didn't prune something they shouldn't. Maybe you got a payment, and the miner doesn't want you to see it (or the government told him to remove it), so they prune it (retaining only the hash, but the block is still valid).

Satoshi's pruning is basically the same in terms of trust as SPV.

In the back of my mind im still intertwining the concepts of bandwidth/time required for sync versus storage requirements of the blockchain. The bandwidth/time was solved by SPV and perhaps ultimately for desktop users be useful to have a lite wallet download which would be in SPV node and have a default trust of a bitcoin foundation node or something configurable OOTB.. so avg joe can simply click on it and run, but with the fine line that its only for new users who don't already have a wallet.

The storage which isn't really that big of a problem but solves being able to store on smaller flash disks is now solved by the pruning of old blocks of spent outputs.

Correct?
legendary
Activity: 2968
Merit: 1198
April 27, 2015, 01:58:30 PM
Did you see the latest commit on pruning? Allows you to specify max disk usage and it prunes old blocks.. validates by reindexing which downloads all chain then prunes. You check it out? I wonder what the point is if youhave todownload the full chain anyway why prune? The main bottleneck is the lenghty sync time not storage space.
I also noticed that it has logic to stop sending blocks requested that have been pruned. So there is assumption that there are full nodes out there to give you the block that others have pruned.

There's also a plan to let you keep certain block ranges and network protocol addition to advertise which parts a node has. That way, full block data can be kept in a distributed fashion while nodes can still run (and contribute more meaningfully than just as a relay and utxo set provider) even with disk space limits.

In fact with that it would be theoretically possible to run the network (fully trustable) without any node having storage space for the whole blockchain.
Kinda like bittorrent ?

Not exactly. BitTorrent distributes the entire file to all peers and in fact it actively tries to distribute pieces with a low count more quickly. In this case, not every node would have every block by design. It's a bit more dangerous what is being proposed. An attacker can prevent new nodes from syncing by finding all of the nodes that have a particular piece of the blockchain (whichever piece is rarest) and attacking them.

Still, as long as there is one good copy of the blockchain in the world, it can always be sent out again. So I don't think we need to worry too much. Some people will still run nodes without pruning.

Isn't the pruning approach Satoshi alluded to in his whitepaper #7 (https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf) the better approach? The hash of the block remains so full verification is still possible after pruning.. blocks are still around just the spent tx's are gone... so you can reindex to get them again if you wish.

No, unless you can verify the flow of transactions yourself you are ultimately trusting the miners. They put the transaction in the block; the hash proves that. But how do you know they were not cheating when they did? Also, you don't know that they didn't prune something they shouldn't. Maybe you got a payment, and the miner doesn't want you to see it (or the government told him to remove it), so they prune it (retaining only the hash, but the block is still valid).

Satoshi's pruning is basically the same in terms of trust as SPV.
legendary
Activity: 2044
Merit: 1005
April 27, 2015, 01:54:20 PM
Did you see the latest commit on pruning? Allows you to specify max disk usage and it prunes old blocks.. validates by reindexing which downloads all chain then prunes. You check it out? I wonder what the point is if youhave todownload the full chain anyway why prune? The main bottleneck is the lenghty sync time not storage space.
I also noticed that it has logic to stop sending blocks requested that have been pruned. So there is assumption that there are full nodes out there to give you the block that others have pruned.

There's also a plan to let you keep certain block ranges and network protocol addition to advertise which parts a node has. That way, full block data can be kept in a distributed fashion while nodes can still run (and contribute more meaningfully than just as a relay and utxo set provider) even with disk space limits.

In fact with that it would be theoretically possible to run the network (fully trustable) without any node having storage space for the whole blockchain.
Kinda like bittorrent ?

Not exactly. BitTorrent distributes the entire file to all peers and in fact it actively tries to distribute pieces with a low count more quickly. In this case, not every node would have every block by design. It's a bit more dangerous what is being proposed. An attacker can prevent new nodes from syncing by finding all of the nodes that have a particular piece of the blockchain (whichever piece is rarest) and attacking them.

Still, as long as there is one good copy of the blockchain in the world, it can always be sent out again. So I don't think we need to worry too much. Some people will still run nodes without pruning.

Isn't the pruning approach Satoshi alluded to in his whitepaper #7 (https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf) the better approach? The hash of the block remains so full verification is still possible after pruning.. blocks are still around just the spent tx's are gone... so you can reindex to get them again if you wish.

In the current commit the blocks are pruned themselves.. which deletes the merkle tree. Satoshi's approach was more of a compacting of the block by pruning transactions instead of pruning blocks altogether.

hmm, I guess if all nodes ended up pruning the spent tx's there could be a point where a new node syncing would not be able to replay the chain and verify it properly? Even though the hash of the block is preserved , the spent transactions wouldn't be foudn anywhere to download them, so all you would have left is the UTXO, no more historical ledger for accounting purposes.
legendary
Activity: 1764
Merit: 1002
April 27, 2015, 12:45:49 PM
Did you see the latest commit on pruning? Allows you to specify max disk usage and it prunes old blocks.. validates by reindexing which downloads all chain then prunes. You check it out? I wonder what the point is if youhave todownload the full chain anyway why prune? The main bottleneck is the lenghty sync time not storage space.
I also noticed that it has logic to stop sending blocks requested that have been pruned. So there is assumption that there are full nodes out there to give you the block that others have pruned.

There's also a plan to let you keep certain block ranges and network protocol addition to advertise which parts a node has. That way, full block data can be kept in a distributed fashion while nodes can still run (and contribute more meaningfully than just as a relay and utxo set provider) even with disk space limits.

In fact with that it would be theoretically possible to run the network (fully trustable) without any node having storage space for the whole blockchain.

Yes, keeping whole block ranges (randomly determined before pruning) is an important feature of pruning which will hopefully be included in due course.

So what  do all these pruned nodes do with the blocks they mine going forward? Immediately delete them after they get accepted into the longest chain?
Jump to: