On Fri, Apr 11, 2014 at 5:54 PM, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxw...@gmail.com> wrote:

> For the non-error-coded case I believe nodes
> with random spans of blocks works out asymptotically to the same
> failure rates as random.

If each "block" is really 512 blocks in sequence, then each "slot" is more
likely to be hit.  It effectively reduces the number of blocks by the
minimum run lengths.

ECC seemed cooler though.

> (The conversation Peter Todd was referring to was one where I was
> pointing out that with suitable error coding you also get an
> anti-censorship effect where its very difficult to provide part of the
> data without potentially providing all of it)

Interesting too.

> I think in the network we have today and for the foreseeable future we
> can reasonably count on there being a reasonable number of nodes that
> store all the blocks... quite likely not enough to satisfy the
> historical block demand from the network alone, but easily enough to
> supply blocks that have otherwise gone missing.

That's true.  Scaling up the transactions per second increases the chance
of data lost.

With side/tree chains, the odds of data loss in the less important chains
increases (though they are by definition lower value chains)
"Accelerate Dev Cycles with Automated Cross-Browser Testing - For FREE
Instantly run your Selenium tests across 300+ browser/OS combos.  Get 
unparalleled scalability from the best Selenium testing platform available.
Simple to use. Nothing to install. Get started now for free."
Bitcoin-development mailing list

Reply via email to