Hardfork 2016 Value Size Limit

biolizard89
Posts: 1993
Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2012 6:25 am
os: linux

Re: Hardfork 2016 Value Size Limit

Post by biolizard89 » Fri Feb 12, 2016 2:11 am

johnc wrote:
biolizard89 wrote:
johnc wrote:Most likely 99% of the digital signature users in general will use their government (or company) issued ID card to sign. Because that's what will be recognized in their countries. :roll:

Example here.
I'm not sure what you're responding to. Are you saying 99% of the public shouldn't use GPG? That seems like an odd argument to be making.
Jesus Christ!, i'm making a prediction...

I said, that most people will never use GPG directly, they will use a closed scheme promoted by governments or companies, that may be based on GPG or PGP technology indirectly, but will have real id data verified by an approved entity like the police or facebook, that will give assurances that you are giving me your real name.

So 99% of the people don't have the technical knowledge or the will to setting up their own GPG/PGP or Namecoin identity. Because, for starters, there are no applications where you could use it. I cannot pay my taxes with it, i cannot request a new passport online with it, i cannot sign up to paypal or a exchange with it...

Obviously, for authenticating yourself in the context of a random internet forum, like this one, PGP is the only way to assure identity, if you want to remain anonymous.

So if you are scared of your government hijacking your id and using it for tracking you, then by al means use it. But most of the people are much more naive, as we are all sharing all our data with google 24/7.
Your response this time was longer, but it still doesn't answer my question, which was that I couldn't tell what you were responding to or what argument you were making with respect to the value size limit.
Jeremy Rand, Lead Namecoin Application Engineer
NameID: id/jeremy
DyName: Dynamic DNS update client for .bit domains.

Donations: BTC 1EcUWRa9H6ZuWPkF3BDj6k4k1vCgv41ab8 ; NMC NFqbaS7ReiQ9MBmsowwcDSmp4iDznjmEh5

johnc
Posts: 89
Joined: Sun Dec 28, 2014 10:03 am

Re: Hardfork 2016 Value Size Limit

Post by johnc » Sat Feb 13, 2016 2:38 am

biolizard89 wrote: 100% of people who use email should be using GPG. That's the usage level that should be assumed if we're going to evaluate scalability concerns.
While the first part of this statement may be true, the second part is not a plausible scenario. Should namecoin raise the limit to support GPG signatures, there is no need to plan for all the world joining in. Because it won't happen even in your wildest dreams.

And the way to prove it, is that while 99% of the people use money, only a few of them use digital signatures. So GPG signatures on-chain potential market is smaller than bitcoin potential market to begin with.

So, just like bitcoin was not designed in mind to replace all fiat money transactions, Namecoin is not designed to support all domains and identities. And it's okay, it's a niche market.

Anyway... let's hope 1 Kb is enough for everyone.

biolizard89
Posts: 1993
Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2012 6:25 am
os: linux

Re: Hardfork 2016 Value Size Limit

Post by biolizard89 » Sat Feb 13, 2016 8:06 am

johnc wrote:
biolizard89 wrote: 100% of people who use email should be using GPG. That's the usage level that should be assumed if we're going to evaluate scalability concerns.
While the first part of this statement may be true, the second part is not a plausible scenario. Should namecoin raise the limit to support GPG signatures, there is no need to plan for all the world joining in. Because it won't happen even in your wildest dreams.

And the way to prove it, is that while 99% of the people use money, only a few of them use digital signatures. So GPG signatures on-chain potential market is smaller than bitcoin potential market to begin with.

So, just like bitcoin was not designed in mind to replace all fiat money transactions, Namecoin is not designed to support all domains and identities. And it's okay, it's a niche market.

Anyway... let's hope 1 Kb is enough for everyone.
If GPG is not widely adopted, Namecoin should not be the reason for that failure. What you're arguing appears to be "I don't think Namecoin is likely to need to scale, therefore I make architecture decisions under the assumption that it will never need to." Whether Namecoin ends up being widely popular is impossible to predict at this point. There is no reason to intentionally alter Namecoin so that it scales more poorly.

Also, since when was Bitcoin not designed to replace all fiat money? Bitcoin is perfectly capable of replacing fiat money, under the condition that some activity takes place off-chain. That's pretty much identical to Namecoin: Namecoin is capable of being used for all DNS and identities, under the condition that some activity takes place off-chain. In Namecoin's case, that off-chain activity includes things like GPG keys not being stuffed into scriptPubKeys.

Other than that, I'm guessing that you haven't bothered to look up the usage of GPG with respect to time. I would guess that it's increased a lot since Snowden's leaks confirmed that it was effective. You have no idea whether it will continue to accelerate. Encryption is a much bigger market now than it was a few years ago.
Jeremy Rand, Lead Namecoin Application Engineer
NameID: id/jeremy
DyName: Dynamic DNS update client for .bit domains.

Donations: BTC 1EcUWRa9H6ZuWPkF3BDj6k4k1vCgv41ab8 ; NMC NFqbaS7ReiQ9MBmsowwcDSmp4iDznjmEh5

johnc
Posts: 89
Joined: Sun Dec 28, 2014 10:03 am

Re: Hardfork 2016 Value Size Limit

Post by johnc » Tue Feb 16, 2016 12:45 am

Anyway...

Does anyone know what is the average size of a DNS record?

Not the average size of a DNS request, but the size of the actual data that a single domain may contain in all the records...

I can't find any info about that. Only that a DNS TXT record can be up to 65535 (0xFFFF) bytes long.

In any case, i vote for 1 or 2 KB. Keep in mind this is just a arbitrary limit, like the blocksize limit. And if old values are pruned after they expire, and if SEGWIT is implemented, we should be fine.

biolizard89
Posts: 1993
Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2012 6:25 am
os: linux

Re: Hardfork 2016 Value Size Limit

Post by biolizard89 » Tue Feb 16, 2016 2:05 pm

johnc wrote:Anyway...

Does anyone know what is the average size of a DNS record?

Not the average size of a DNS request, but the size of the actual data that a single domain may contain in all the records...

I can't find any info about that. Only that a DNS TXT record can be up to 65535 (0xFFFF) bytes long.

In any case, i vote for 1 or 2 KB. Keep in mind this is just a arbitrary limit, like the blocksize limit. And if old values are pruned after they expire, and if SEGWIT is implemented, we should be fine.
I actually tried to find that info last week; I can't find any existing research on it, and I'm not sure if it's even possible to do the research, since standard DNS doesn't let you enumerate a zone (unless the zone owner has enabled it, which is rare). Hugo didn't have any ideas on this either.

The block size limit isn't arbitrary. The 1 MB limit that currently exists in Bitcoin was chosen in a somewhat arbitrary way (it was implemented as an anti-DoS emergency measure), but Blockstream's research suggests that around 3 MB the network starts to break down. Since we don't have the resources to do that research ourselves, I'm inclined to not go above what Bitcoin does.

I do agree, however, that improvements like UTXO pruning, expired value pruning, SegWit, and SegValues are likely to improve scalability to the point that we might be able to safely increase the value size limit. I won't speculate on exactly how much it can be increased under such circumstances.
Jeremy Rand, Lead Namecoin Application Engineer
NameID: id/jeremy
DyName: Dynamic DNS update client for .bit domains.

Donations: BTC 1EcUWRa9H6ZuWPkF3BDj6k4k1vCgv41ab8 ; NMC NFqbaS7ReiQ9MBmsowwcDSmp4iDznjmEh5

Post Reply