Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Newsletters: add 49 (2019-06-05) #150

Merged
merged 1 commit into from Jun 5, 2019

Conversation

@harding
Copy link
Contributor

harding commented May 31, 2019

No description provided.

@harding harding force-pushed the harding:2019-06-05-newsletter branch from 081248c to 51f8860 May 31, 2019
@moneyball

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

moneyball commented May 31, 2019

tACK 51f8860

@harding

This comment was marked as outdated.

Copy link
Contributor Author

harding commented Jun 1, 2019

The recent push adds two commits containing the COSHV content. The first commit is the content split off from last week as it was when last reviewed (including the deleted payment channels subsection, as it was immediately before deletion). The second commit provides edits for Rubin's remaining comments from last week (except this one, which I thought unnecessary) as well as the updated images for a binary tree. Even though too large to illustrate nicely, I chose a tree with 32 leaves as the smallest number where the first spender seems to receive a significant discount:

  • 8 participants: first withdrawer creates 6 outputs and spends 2 extra inputs over the 8 outputs for simple payment batching
  • 16 participants: first withdrawer creates 8 outputs and spends 3 extra inputs over the 16 outputs for simple payment batching (
  • 32 participants: first withdrawer creates 10 outputs and spends 4 extra inputs over the 32 outputs for payment batching
[bech32 easy]: {{news38}}#bech32-sending-support
[news48 coshv]: {{news48}}#proposed-transaction-output-commitments
[alt-coshv]: https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2019-June/016997.html
[kotliar ln]: /{% comment %}<!-- FIXME -->{% endcomment %}

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
@harding

harding Jun 3, 2019

Author Contributor

I have the URL for his, but the video is marked private and I don't think we want to release it until shortly before publication, so this is a FIXME for now.

@moneyball

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

moneyball commented Jun 3, 2019

utACK 6982a49

Fantastic description of Erlay!

Copy link
Contributor

jnewbery left a comment

Looks great. I've left a bunch of nits inline.

We were going to include a blurb for the review club (https://bitcoin-core-review-club.github.io/) this week. Would you like me to write that?


After describing the Erlay protocol, the paper analyzes its performance
using both a simulated network of 60,000 nodes (similar in number and use to
the current Bitcoin network) and a live set of 100 nodes spread Internationally

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
@jnewbery

jnewbery Jun 4, 2019

Contributor

s/Internationally/internationally

(or "spread across datacenters in several countries")


Having established that the protocol is a worthwhile efficiency
improvement, the paper considers the most important of its secondary aspects:
its effect on privacy. Bitcoin Core currently implements artificial delays

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
@jnewbery

jnewbery Jun 4, 2019

Contributor

s/artificial/randomized/ ?

incoming connections, Erlay always performed as well or better than the current
protocol. In cases where the spy nodes were private nodes making connections
to honest nodes, Erlay sometimes performed better and sometimes performed
worse---but never more than 10% worse (and then in an unlikely situation). <!--

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
@jnewbery

jnewbery Jun 4, 2019

Contributor

Consider removing or rewording "(and then in an unlikely situation)."

notes that an increase in the number of outbound peers from 8 to 32 would only
increase the bandwidth used by a node to announce the existence of new
transactions by 32% with Erlay compared to 300% using the current protocol.
<!-- figure 10 --> Note, as described in the paragraph above about Erlay's two

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
@jnewbery

jnewbery Jun 4, 2019

Contributor

Remove "Note, "

to 8 peers, but nodes would perform set reconciliation with 32 peers.
A four-fold increase in the number of outbound peers could improve the
probability that each node makes a connection to at least one honest peer that
is itself well connected. Without reliable connections between honest peers,

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
@jnewbery

jnewbery Jun 4, 2019

Contributor

Consider removing "Without reliable connections..." to the end of the paragraph. I think we can assume our readership understands the importance of having one well-connected honest peer.


- **COSHV proposal replaced:** the author of the COSHV proposal we described
[last week][news48 coshv] has replaced it with a [similar
proposal][alt-coshv] (under a different name). The new proposal checks more

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
@jnewbery

jnewbery Jun 4, 2019

Contributor

nit: remove parentheses

allowing a single input is still recommended to avoid unwanted interactions).

Except for the new name, the changes don't affect the summary of COSHV we
wrote last week. However, the changes do affect some additional material about

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
@jnewbery

jnewbery Jun 4, 2019

Contributor

I'd remove this sentence. I know we announced it last week. We could:

  1. keep this sentence here.
  2. remove this sentence, and add a note to the tween announcing the newsletter "Due to the fast-changing nature of the OP_COSHV proposal, we are not including the 'advanced use cases' of OP_COSHV we announced last week. We will continue to cover OP_COSHV as the proposal matures." or similar.
  3. just remove this sentence.

I prefer (2) or (3).

We could also remove "In next week’s newsletter, we’ll look at some other ways COSHV could be used to improve efficiency, privacy, or both." from the website version of last week's newsletter.

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
@harding

harding Jun 4, 2019

Author Contributor

I did (3). I don't know what "tween" means in (2), but it also seems predicated on removing this sentence, so I went with that. If I'm not around, please feel free to add a note (or not).

As for editing last week's newsletter, I wouldn't feel comfortable making a substantial edit like that without leaving a note about the edit, which I think would kinda defeat the purpose.

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
@harding

harding Jun 4, 2019

Author Contributor

I figured out "tween" probably means "tweet". I think tweeting that initially is unnecessary, but that it'd be good for any one of us to tweet something like that in reply to anyone asking about the previously-announced text.

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
@jnewbery

jnewbery Jun 4, 2019

Contributor

Yes s/tween/tweet/

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
@jnewbery

jnewbery Jun 5, 2019

Contributor

I wouldn't feel comfortable making a substantial edit like that without leaving a note about the edit, which I think would kinda defeat the purpose.

I feel comfortable making edits to old newsletters on the website that make them more accurate/clearer for readers, since I see them as a more permanent resource. We can discuss more over the IRC.

- **COSHV proposal replaced:** the author of the COSHV proposal we described
[last week][news48 coshv] has replaced it with a [similar
proposal][alt-coshv] (under a different name). The new proposal checks more
than just the hash of a transaction's outputs, now it includes the transaction's

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
@jnewbery

jnewbery Jun 4, 2019

Contributor

nit: replace the comma with a -, ;, or and now also includes...

than just the hash of a transaction's outputs, now it includes the transaction's
version number, number of inputs, sequence numbers, and locktime. This
change eliminates concerns related to transaction malleability that would've
affected using the opcode with some types of payment channels (such as those

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
@jnewbery

jnewbery Jun 4, 2019

Contributor

nit: shorten this to "using the opcode with Lightning Network and other contract proposals."


- [LND #2985][] waits to relay gossip announcements until there are there are
at least ten of them to send and five seconds have elapsed since the previous
batch, reducing bandwidth overhead.

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
@jnewbery

jnewbery Jun 4, 2019

Contributor

Maybe note that as the number of channels on the lightning network has increased, all LN implementations have had to do work to handle gossip messages efficiently (eg LND 2538, c-lighning 2297 and eclair 948)

@jnewbery jnewbery changed the title [WIP] Newsletters: add 48 (2019-06-05) [WIP] Newsletters: add 49 (2019-06-05) Jun 4, 2019
@harding harding changed the title [WIP] Newsletters: add 49 (2019-06-05) Newsletters: add 49 (2019-06-05) Jun 4, 2019
@harding

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor Author

harding commented Jun 4, 2019

Pushed edits for @jnewbery feedback (thanks!) and some final small edits of my own. Unless there's any additional feedback, the only todo is adding the link to Kotliar's video.

@jnewbery

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

jnewbery commented Jun 5, 2019

ACK 3da641d

@harding is going to add a 'Bitcoin Core Review Club' blurb, then I think it's ready for @bitschmidty to squash and merge.

@jnewbery

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

jnewbery commented Jun 5, 2019

I've moved the 'Optech recommends' section further up (in my mind the regular weekly sections 'bech32 support' and 'notable commits' fit together), and reworded slightly to remove the repeated 'established' and the names of the contributors.

utACK 83e1be1 once the commits have been squashed

@bitschmidty bitschmidty force-pushed the harding:2019-06-05-newsletter branch from 83e1be1 to 57c95b7 Jun 5, 2019
@jnewbery

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

jnewbery commented Jun 5, 2019

ACK 57c95b7

🚢 it!

@bitschmidty

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

bitschmidty commented Jun 5, 2019

squashed commits to a single commit and force-pushed

@bitschmidty bitschmidty merged commit a6dd157 into bitcoinops:master Jun 5, 2019
2 checks passed
2 checks passed
continuous-integration/travis-ci/pr The Travis CI build passed
Details
netlify/bitcoinops/deploy-preview Deploy preview ready!
Details
@bitschmidty

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

bitschmidty commented Jun 5, 2019

we are merged! thanks @harding for another great newsletter. cheers to @jnewbery for reviewing

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
4 participants
You can’t perform that action at this time.