1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
|
Received: from sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.193]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-3.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <mh.in.england@gmail.com>) id 1YwxER-0003nX-Mx
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Mon, 25 May 2015 18:36:11 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
designates 209.85.212.174 as permitted sender)
client-ip=209.85.212.174; envelope-from=mh.in.england@gmail.com;
helo=mail-wi0-f174.google.com;
Received: from mail-wi0-f174.google.com ([209.85.212.174])
by sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1YwxEQ-0008R2-Pd
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Mon, 25 May 2015 18:36:11 +0000
Received: by wichy4 with SMTP id hy4so56519214wic.1
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Mon, 25 May 2015 11:36:04 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.180.96.196 with SMTP id du4mr4864308wib.77.1432578964812;
Mon, 25 May 2015 11:36:04 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: mh.in.england@gmail.com
Received: by 10.194.143.9 with HTTP; Mon, 25 May 2015 11:36:04 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <5554BDC1.6070206@thinlink.com>
References: <5554BDC1.6070206@thinlink.com>
Date: Mon, 25 May 2015 20:36:04 +0200
X-Google-Sender-Auth: COwRU5kGC8gKtfEyQ6ks-4GftNY
Message-ID: <CANEZrP3AbNOW8G-4SyNZNLbD56TrB9c0zz8SCZPFacxDzDVt=g@mail.gmail.com>
From: Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net>
To: Tom Harding <tomh@thinlink.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f46d043bdabc4f77980516ec480d
X-Spam-Score: -0.5 (/)
X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net.
See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details.
-1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for
sender-domain
0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider
(mh.in.england[at]gmail.com)
-0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record
1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message
0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature,
not necessarily valid
-0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature
X-Headers-End: 1YwxEQ-0008R2-Pd
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] No Bitcoin For You
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: <bitcoin-development.lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_name=bitcoin-development>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 25 May 2015 18:36:11 -0000
--f46d043bdabc4f77980516ec480d
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
> If capacity grows, fewer individuals would be able to run full nodes.
>
Hardly. Nobody is currently exhausting the CPU capacity of even a normal
computer currently and even if we did a 20x increase in load overnight,
that still wouldn't even warm up most machines good enough to be always on.
The reasons full nodes are unpopular to run seem to be:
1. Uncontrollable bandwidth usage from sending people the chain
2. People don't run them all the time, then don't want to wait for them to
catch up
The first can be fixed with better code (you can already easily opt out of
uploading the chain, it's just not as fine-grained as desirable), and the
second is fundamental to what full nodes do and how people work. For
merchants, who are the most important demographic we want to be using full
nodes, they can just keep it running all the time. No biggie.
> Therefore miners and other full nodes would depend on
> it, which is rather critical as those nodes grow closer to data-center
> proportions.
>
This meme about datacenter-sized nodes has to die. The Bitcoin wiki is down
right now, but I showed years ago that you could keep up with VISA on a
single well specced server with today's technology. Only people living in a
dreamworld think that Bitcoin might actually have to match that level of
transaction demand with today's hardware. As noted previously, "too many
users" is simply not a problem Bitcoin has .... and may never have!
--f46d043bdabc4f77980516ec480d
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<div dir=3D"ltr"><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><blo=
ckquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #c=
cc solid;padding-left:1ex">If capacity grows, fewer individuals would be ab=
le to run full nodes.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Hardly. Nobody is=
currently exhausting the CPU capacity of even a normal computer currently =
and even if we did a 20x increase in load overnight, that still wouldn'=
t even warm up most machines good enough to be always on.</div><div><br></d=
iv><div>The reasons full nodes are unpopular to run seem to be:</div><div><=
br></div><div>1. Uncontrollable bandwidth usage from sending people the cha=
in</div><div>2. People don't run them all the time, then don't want=
to wait for them to catch up</div><div><br></div><div>The first can be fix=
ed with better code (you can already easily opt out of uploading the chain,=
it's just not as fine-grained as desirable), and the second is fundame=
ntal to what full nodes do and how people work. For merchants, who are the =
most important demographic we want to be using full nodes, they can just ke=
ep it running all the time. No biggie.</div><div>=C2=A0</div><blockquote cl=
ass=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;p=
adding-left:1ex">Therefore miners and other full nodes would depend on<br>
it, which is rather critical as those nodes grow closer to data-center<br>
proportions.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>This meme about datacenter=
-sized nodes has to die. The Bitcoin wiki is down right now, but I showed y=
ears ago that you could keep up with VISA on a single well specced server w=
ith today's technology. Only people living in a dreamworld think that B=
itcoin might actually have to match that level of transaction demand with t=
oday's hardware. As noted previously, "too many users" is sim=
ply not a problem Bitcoin has .... and may never have!</div><div><br></div>=
</div></div></div>
--f46d043bdabc4f77980516ec480d--
|
