MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAAt2M19Nr2KdyRkM_arJ=LBnqDQQyLQ2QQ-UBC8=gFnemCdPMg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CABerxhFY8NoA6sSiz1oZ=01Di8n9+QR1xE6NNtxvm=Ov1bGhWQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<9eb001f8-7623-3c79-41bb-7ed6e45b43ae@voskuil.org>
	<CAAt2M1_kuCBQWd9dis5UwJX8+XGVPjjiOA54aD74iS2L0cYcTQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAAt2M19Nr2KdyRkM_arJ=LBnqDQQyLQ2QQ-UBC8=gFnemCdPMg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Natanael <natanael.l@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 1 Apr 2017 15:26:35 +0200
Message-ID: <CAAt2M18sPfFpEo2YySgouhBZWv8KvDgg2HcNpoGuD4fcU2Z_iA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>,
	Eric Voskuil <eric@voskuil.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1149d3d81fefd3054c1ae055
Cc: Rodney Morris <rodney.morris@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Hard fork proposal from last week's meeting
Precedence: list

--001a1149d3d81fefd3054c1ae055
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

Den 1 apr. 2017 01:13 skrev "Eric Voskuil via bitcoin-dev" <
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>:

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

On 03/31/2017 02:23 PM, Rodney Morris via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> If the obsession with every personal computer being able to run a
> fill node continues then bitcoin will be consigned to the dustbin
> of history,

The cause of the block size debate is the failure to understand the
Bitcoin security model. This failure is perfectly exemplified by the
above statement. If a typical personal computer cannot run a node
there is no security.


If you're capable of running and trusting your own node chances are you
already have something better than a typical personal computer!

And those who don't have it themselves likely know where they can run or
access a node they can trust.

If you're expecting average joe to trust the likely not updated node on his
old unpatched computer full of viruses, you're going to have a bad time.

The real solution is to find ways to reduce the required trust in a
practical manner.

Using lightweight clients with multiple servers have already been
mentioned, Zero-knowledge proofs (if the can be made practical and stay
secure...) is another obvious future tool, and hardware wallets helps
against malware.

If you truly want everybody to run their own full nodes, the only plausible
solution is managed hardware in the style of Chromebooks, except that you
could pick your own distribution and software repository. Meaning you're
still trusting the exact same people whose nodes you would otherwise rely
on, except now you're mirroring their nodes on your own hardware instead.
Which at most improves auditability.

--001a1149d3d81fefd3054c1ae055
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"auto"><div><br><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><div class=3D"gma=
il_quote">Den 1 apr. 2017 01:13 skrev &quot;Eric Voskuil via bitcoin-dev&qu=
ot; &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org">bitcoin-de=
v@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a>&gt;:<br type=3D"attribution"><blockquote cl=
ass=3D"quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding=
-left:1ex">-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----<br>
Hash: SHA256<br>
<div class=3D"quoted-text"><br>
On 03/31/2017 02:23 PM, Rodney Morris via bitcoin-dev wrote:<br>
&gt; If the obsession with every personal computer being able to run a<br>
&gt; fill node continues then bitcoin will be consigned to the dustbin<br>
&gt; of history,<br>
<br>
</div>The cause of the block size debate is the failure to understand the<b=
r>
Bitcoin security model. This failure is perfectly exemplified by the<br>
above statement. If a typical personal computer cannot run a node<br>
there is no security.=C2=A0</blockquote></div></div></div><div dir=3D"auto"=
><br></div><div dir=3D"auto">If you&#39;re capable of running and trusting =
your own node chances are you already have something better than a typical =
personal computer!=C2=A0</div><div dir=3D"auto"><br></div><div dir=3D"auto"=
>And those who don&#39;t have it themselves likely know where they can run =
or access a node they can trust.=C2=A0</div><div dir=3D"auto"><br></div><di=
v dir=3D"auto">If you&#39;re expecting average joe to trust the likely not =
updated node on his old unpatched computer full of viruses, you&#39;re goin=
g to have a bad time.=C2=A0</div><div dir=3D"auto"><br></div><div dir=3D"au=
to">The real solution is to find ways to reduce the required trust in a pra=
ctical manner.=C2=A0</div><div dir=3D"auto"><br></div><div dir=3D"auto">Usi=
ng lightweight clients with multiple servers have already been mentioned, Z=
ero-knowledge proofs (if the can be made practical and stay secure...) is a=
nother obvious future tool, and hardware wallets helps against malware.=C2=
=A0</div><div dir=3D"auto"><br></div><div dir=3D"auto">If you truly want ev=
erybody to run their own full nodes, the only plausible solution is managed=
 hardware in the style of Chromebooks, except that you could pick your own =
distribution and software repository. Meaning you&#39;re still trusting the=
 exact same people whose nodes you would otherwise rely on, except now you&=
#39;re mirroring their nodes on your own hardware instead. Which at most im=
proves auditability.=C2=A0</div><div dir=3D"auto"><br></div><div dir=3D"aut=
o"></div><div dir=3D"auto"><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><div class=3D"gmail_q=
uote"><blockquote class=3D"quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1p=
x #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"></blockquote></div></div></div></div>

--001a1149d3d81fefd3054c1ae055--