Message-ID: <53436977.4030808@jerviss.org>
Date: Mon, 07 Apr 2014 22:13:59 -0500
From: kjj <bitcoin-devel@jerviss.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.2; WOW64;
	rv:28.0) Gecko/20100101 SeaMonkey/2.25
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Eric Martindale <eric@ericmartindale.com>
References: <CANEZrP2rgiQHpekEpFviJ22QsiV+s-F2pqosaZOA5WrRtJx5pg@mail.gmail.com>	<CALC81CMc7BridL7600b7bij3dJHzeQWgTv=iqVeW--n-we+1Yw@mail.gmail.com>	<lhua2p$lp5$1@ger.gmane.org>	<CANEZrP3F+UQ1amVAK4a9_UCsXia7Yfv0RO4pWK7NTde0GvH-0A@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAAf19Wrz0u_e5V9Gb=_CAG=mHtE9nA_VETgYZeCXZqwaGeYKuQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAAf19Wrz0u_e5V9Gb=_CAG=mHtE9nA_VETgYZeCXZqwaGeYKuQ@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Received-SPF: pass (inana.jerviss.org: 192.151.168.151 is authenticated by a
	trusted mechanism)
Cc: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Why are we bleeding nodes?
Precedence: list

Multi-sig requires infrastructure.  It isn't a magic wand that we can 
wave to make everyone secure.  The protocols and techniques necessary 
don't exist yet, and apparently no one has much of an incentive to 
create them.

I mean no offense, and I don't mean to pick on you.  Your post stuck out 
while I was reading.  Secure multi-sig is what we all want, but wanting 
apparently isn't enough to make it happen.

Other random notes from reading this 50+ post thread:

Perhaps we should have a config flag to prevent a node from serving IBD 
to new nodes.  IBD crushes marginal machines, particularly those with 
spinning disks.  This has been extensively discussed elsewhere.

The ideal IBD hosts are serving the blockchain out of a RAM disk. Is 
there any interest in setting up a network of volunteers to host 
expensive servers with fast connections?  It doesn't look too terribly 
difficult to figure out when a node has stopped asking for blocks in 
bulk, so we could add another config flag to eject nodes once they are 
done booting.

Even ignoring IBD, I think that we are gradually outgrowing cheapass 
hosting options.  Personally, I long ago gave up on answering forum 
questions about running nodes on virtual servers and VPSs.  It is 
certainly still possible to run bitcoind on small boxes, but it isn't 
trivial any more.  (Anyone running on less than my Athlon XP 1800+ with 
896 MB RAM?)  If we want those nodes back, we need to optimize the hell 
out of the memory use, and even that might not be enough.


Eric Martindale wrote:
>
> We need to make it so mind-numbingly simple to "run Bitcoin correctly" 
> that the average user doesn't find reasons to do so in the course of 
> normal use.  Right now, Coinbase and Bitstamp are winning in the user 
> experience battle, which technically endanger the user, and by proxy 
> the Bitcoin network.
>
> Multi-sig as a default is a start.  It won't succeed unless the user 
> experience is simply better than trusted third parties, but we need to 
> start the education process with the very basic fundamental: trusting 
> a third-party with full access to your Bitcoin is just replacing one 
> centralized banking system with another.
>
>