Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7E016B9B for ; Wed, 29 Mar 2017 22:33:20 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-wr0-f172.google.com (mail-wr0-f172.google.com [209.85.128.172]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 15389161 for ; Wed, 29 Mar 2017 22:33:19 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-wr0-f172.google.com with SMTP id l43so36189992wre.1 for ; Wed, 29 Mar 2017 15:33:18 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version :in-reply-to; bh=REBhTy93BvwyTitAFNG8/0gQE4mf3hYfA9x0KCYNtt0=; b=rbZiCQwcmDyBPNsaQu+QFC3ydcaLUhtkVjwYqtacHx0NjEx0heQwy07BIMBYvRBnni IT2nS+R+Gt8NHVDDJMu3EBOLAqL4glxtcIDje3/ifm+P/lODXBQmeF2Hw4BpQavHKCuS +bKwhPClAvYh0feaeDPVgjV8cu6QU/45gyPSNHAYleFaJpZ1cyJ/VNK/ZO0CZDaEtSaC XLDCuAAM6HzZ142pDME5PYqdJTwcjTy/LB5YsEeiCXJej8TvcdKKurtY18K2roIe/sNV xZXtgAeHQpKzdKgujQHo10u8AhCOFWw2IAXhk9FUZ8fGKCTT+gw4q7VsP4Q0aDHbb9iQ BVhA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to; bh=REBhTy93BvwyTitAFNG8/0gQE4mf3hYfA9x0KCYNtt0=; b=cUA7MjwjvCQqB7GG8mxF9LTlMMtNnumm5pdZMqcD5lryMPFLShjadxU8y8dmk58C2f 8C+iDchtad4m7rJIkXVGnCMiVJYkUE7IlNnvEZaCDv16wCl0dtl7I39iIHfcTFwwQiTb 6j+8J0j2UqAAL5OUkapOjBuNNdSF25GXcSXxD0DpxBNIycuatG4lJWhpdo6QMcRIZTRv R8ShCnSneIXYMcfdOQaU81sZ4H1yDKmKASaZYzgBhxit2mLwIVJKvm+JX5cTQun8N7uA R9laHfys5FChU+Z/FjAKGS01fr2H2UrV82SJLPAtzuok2Zw6PlTI182WpriWbhs8dmM8 ud9A== X-Gm-Message-State: AFeK/H0BlKDYsCufUTsrqsAmmYEp7CdFmIKS/4BwJJc1w6Qa8crAmOt+ePl1AJL52MEvdA== X-Received: by 10.223.171.11 with SMTP id q11mr2577415wrc.35.1490826797773; Wed, 29 Mar 2017 15:33:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.10] (ANice-654-1-52-124.w83-201.abo.wanadoo.fr. [83.201.223.124]) by smtp.googlemail.com with ESMTPSA id w130sm810266wmg.0.2017.03.29.15.33.16 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 29 Mar 2017 15:33:16 -0700 (PDT) To: Jared Lee Richardson , Bitcoin Protocol Discussion References: From: Aymeric Vitte Message-ID: <2349f523-942c-ffb9-7af2-5cc81264888f@gmail.com> Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2017 00:33:20 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.8.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------51C698277D8F2523AB7BAD2F" X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.0 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, FREEMAIL_FROM, HTML_MESSAGE, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Hard fork proposal from last week's meeting X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2017 22:33:20 -0000 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------51C698277D8F2523AB7BAD2F Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit I have heard such theory before, it's a complete mistake to think that others would run full nodes to protect their business and then yours, unless it is proven that they are decentralized and independent Running a full node is trivial and not expensive for people who know how to do it, even with much bigger blocks, assuming that the full nodes are still decentralized and that they don't have to fight against big nodes who would attract the traffic first I have posted many times here a small proposal, that exactly describes what is going on now, yes miners are nodes too... it's disturbing to see that despite of Tera bytes of BIPs, papers, etc the current situation is happening and that all the supposed decentralized system is biased by centralization Do we know what majority controls the 6000 full nodes? Le 29/03/2017 à 22:32, Jared Lee Richardson via bitcoin-dev a écrit : > > Perhaps you are fortunate to have a home computer that has more than > a single 512GB SSD. Lots of consumer hardware has that little storage. > > That's very poor logic, sorry. Restricted-space SSD's are not a > cost-effective hardware option for running a node. Keeping blocksizes > small has significant other costs for everyone. Comparing the cost of > running a node under arbitrary conditons A, B, or C when there are far > more efficient options than any of those is a very bad way to think > about the costs of running a node. You basically have to ignore the > significant consequences of keeping blocks small. > > If node operational costs rose to the point where an entire wide swath > of users that we do actually need for security purposes could not > justify running a node, that's something important for consideration. > For me, that translates to modern hardware that's relatively well > aligned with the needs of running a node - perhaps budget hardware, > but still modern - and above-average bandwidth caps. > > You're free to disagree, but your example only makes sense to me if > blocksize caps didn't have serious consequences. Even if those > consequences are just the threat of a contentious fork by people who > are mislead about the real consequences, that threat is still a > consequence itself. > > On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 9:18 AM, David Vorick via bitcoin-dev > > wrote: > > Perhaps you are fortunate to have a home computer that has more > than a single 512GB SSD. Lots of consumer hardware has that little > storage. Throw on top of it standard consumer usage, and you're > often left with less than 200 GB of free space. Bitcoin consumes > more than half of that, which feels very expensive, especially if > it motivates you to buy another drive. > > I have talked to several people who cite this as the primary > reason that they are reluctant to join the full node club. > > _______________________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev -- Zcash wallets made simple: https://github.com/Ayms/zcash-wallets Bitcoin wallets made simple: https://github.com/Ayms/bitcoin-wallets Get the torrent dynamic blocklist: http://peersm.com/getblocklist Check the 10 M passwords list: http://peersm.com/findmyass Anti-spies and private torrents, dynamic blocklist: http://torrent-live.org Peersm : http://www.peersm.com torrent-live: https://github.com/Ayms/torrent-live node-Tor : https://www.github.com/Ayms/node-Tor GitHub : https://www.github.com/Ayms --------------51C698277D8F2523AB7BAD2F Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

I have heard such theory before, it's a complete mistake to think that others would run full nodes to protect their business and then yours, unless it is proven that they are decentralized and independent

Running a full node is trivial and not expensive for people who know how to do it, even with much bigger blocks, assuming that the full nodes are still decentralized and that they don't have to fight against big nodes who would attract the traffic first

I have posted many times here a small proposal, that exactly describes what is going on now, yes miners are nodes too... it's disturbing to see that despite of Tera bytes of BIPs, papers, etc the current situation is happening and that all the supposed decentralized system is biased by centralization

Do we know what majority controls the 6000 full nodes?


Le 29/03/2017 à 22:32, Jared Lee Richardson via bitcoin-dev a écrit :
> Perhaps you are fortunate to have a home computer that has more than a single 512GB SSD. Lots of consumer hardware has that little storage.

That's very poor logic, sorry.  Restricted-space SSD's are not a cost-effective hardware option for running a node.  Keeping blocksizes small has significant other costs for everyone.  Comparing the cost of running a node under arbitrary conditons A, B, or C when there are far more efficient options than any of those is a very bad way to think about the costs of running a node.  You basically have to ignore the significant consequences of keeping blocks small.

If node operational costs rose to the point where an entire wide swath of users that we do actually need for security purposes could not justify running a node, that's something important for consideration.  For me, that translates to modern hardware that's relatively well aligned with the needs of running a node - perhaps budget hardware, but still modern - and above-average bandwidth caps.

You're free to disagree, but your example only makes sense to me if blocksize caps didn't have serious consequences.  Even if those consequences are just the threat of a contentious fork by people who are mislead about the real consequences, that threat is still a consequence itself.

On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 9:18 AM, David Vorick via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
Perhaps you are fortunate to have a home computer that has more than a single 512GB SSD. Lots of consumer hardware has that little storage. Throw on top of it standard consumer usage, and you're often left with less than 200 GB of free space. Bitcoin consumes more than half of that, which feels very expensive, especially if it motivates you to buy another drive.

I have talked to several people who cite this as the primary reason that they are reluctant to join the full node club.

_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev




_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev


-- 
Zcash wallets made simple: https://github.com/Ayms/zcash-wallets
Bitcoin wallets made simple: https://github.com/Ayms/bitcoin-wallets
Get the torrent dynamic blocklist: http://peersm.com/getblocklist
Check the 10 M passwords list: http://peersm.com/findmyass
Anti-spies and private torrents, dynamic blocklist: http://torrent-live.org
Peersm : http://www.peersm.com
torrent-live: https://github.com/Ayms/torrent-live
node-Tor : https://www.github.com/Ayms/node-Tor
GitHub : https://www.github.com/Ayms
--------------51C698277D8F2523AB7BAD2F--