MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAPg+sBiCH12i6-WEx++zTbovn=2FZqKAKxfnGkruU_Ah-y-_4g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAPg+sBj-wA1DMrwkQRWnzQoB5NR-q=2-5=WDAAUYfSpXRZSTqw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CALgxB7vqA=o1L0aftMtzNYC_OYJcVw6vuqUeB3a2F6d+VuoJkA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAPg+sBj1qCRvtZ2F1v_1JUTqwws6JOmi+8BYKVoCWPRBSs-Y=g@mail.gmail.com>
	<1542978.eROxFinZd4@coldstorage>
	<CAPg+sBiCH12i6-WEx++zTbovn=2FZqKAKxfnGkruU_Ah-y-_4g@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2015 13:50:00 -0400
Message-ID: <CABsx9T3kwATCovg2FeamNPdJbhM_ypJEd_6fcwfknYsKCBQkbQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Gavin Andresen <gavinandresen@gmail.com>
To: Pieter Wuille <pieter.wuille@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e0158b6c0d50c86051cbc4358
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Fwd: Block size following technological growth
Precedence: list

--089e0158b6c0d50c86051cbc4358
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 12:30 PM, Pieter Wuille via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:

> If the incentives for running a node don't weight up against the
> cost/difficulty using a full node yourself for a majority of people in the
> ecosystem, I would argue that there is a problem. As Bitcoin's fundamental
> improvement over other systems is the lack of need for trust, I believe
> that with increased adoption should also come an increased (in absolute
> terms) incentive for people to use a full node. I'm seeing the opposite
> trend, and that is worrying IMHO.


Are you saying that unless the majority of people in the ecosystem decide
to trust nothing but the genesis block hash (decide to run a full node)
there is a problem?

If so, then we do have a fundamental difference of opinion, but I've
misunderstood how you think about trust/centralization/convenience
tradeoffs in the past.

I believe people in the Bitcoin ecosystem will choose different tradeoffs,
and I believe that is OK-- people should be free to make those tradeoffs.

And given that the majority of people in the ecosystem were deciding that
using a centralized service or an SPV-level-security wallet was better even
two or three years ago when blocks were tiny (I'd have to go back and dig
up number-of-full-nodes and number-of-active-wallets at the big web-wallet
providers, but I bet there were an order of magnitude more people using
centralized services than running full nodes even back then), I firmly
believe that block size has very little to do with the decision to run a
full node or not.


-- 
--
Gavin Andresen

--089e0158b6c0d50c86051cbc4358
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">=
On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 12:30 PM, Pieter Wuille via bitcoin-dev <span dir=3D=
"ltr">&lt;<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" target=
=3D"_blank">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br>=
<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1p=
x #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">If the incentives for running a node don&#39=
;t weight up against the cost/difficulty using a full node yourself for a m=
ajority of people in the ecosystem, I would argue that there is a problem. =
As Bitcoin&#39;s fundamental improvement over other systems is the lack of =
need for trust, I believe that with increased adoption should also come an =
increased (in absolute terms) incentive for people to use a full node. I&#3=
9;m seeing the opposite trend, and that is worrying IMHO.</blockquote></div=
><br>Are you saying that unless the majority of people in the ecosystem dec=
ide to trust nothing but the genesis block hash (decide to run a full node)=
 there is a problem?<br><br>If so, then we do have a fundamental difference=
 of opinion, but I&#39;ve misunderstood how you think about trust/centraliz=
ation/convenience tradeoffs in the past.</div><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><b=
r></div><div class=3D"gmail_extra">I believe people in the Bitcoin ecosyste=
m will choose different tradeoffs, and I believe that is OK-- people should=
 be free to make those tradeoffs.</div><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br></div=
><div class=3D"gmail_extra">And given that the majority of people in the ec=
osystem were deciding that using a centralized service or an SPV-level-secu=
rity wallet was better even two or three years ago when blocks were tiny (I=
&#39;d have to go back and dig up number-of-full-nodes and number-of-active=
-wallets at the big web-wallet providers, but I bet there were an order of =
magnitude more people using centralized services than running full nodes ev=
en back then), I firmly believe that block size has very little to do with =
the decision to run a full node or not.</div><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br=
></div><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><div><br></div>-- <br><div class=3D"gmail=
_signature">--<br>Gavin Andresen<br></div><div class=3D"gmail_signature"><b=
r></div>
</div></div>

--089e0158b6c0d50c86051cbc4358--