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
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
|
Return-Path: <pieter.wuille@gmail.com>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9B038895
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 7 Aug 2015 16:30:31 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-ig0-f173.google.com (mail-ig0-f173.google.com
[209.85.213.173])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C3ADC14B
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 7 Aug 2015 16:30:29 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by igk11 with SMTP id 11so34993967igk.1
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 07 Aug 2015 09:30:29 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to
:cc:content-type;
bh=j7YtBs6PuW3PRG9dKwep8/YCbROC08wW8rlsAiKmZw0=;
b=zIwMN/ofTU+xux++6eCDv4lZa4OZVfPsgzqD0+t20q89TNbgWbr1YHBUYACEy6+7zv
vtJUIHV7gsrl1vEhRiKCSz67lDbxqRhYoWgkbNJ8i2+uxdDPphACMGU3bbG4asfElLYk
NeDIiB0v6RC3e3ndYmvj2wmE/ZLShm0oEf6AT1eNXWDwHbgsTYauT4LfOwEWuVncok4h
sLvGn8aV68qAckoSvV+AYniswiuEST1a/4P3DNrDggYYAs4KmbP1D5PxE3MLo8WGsnWt
pyE06kUnZWglKFNI9XRYApSVDi0G16dcH/Bgb2w3AnRg76L0nf8/0vgb9LqO6OwXWkP9
vvfQ==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.50.117.65 with SMTP id kc1mr3796180igb.94.1438965029157;
Fri, 07 Aug 2015 09:30:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.36.77.201 with HTTP; Fri, 7 Aug 2015 09:30:28 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <1542978.eROxFinZd4@coldstorage>
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>
Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2015 18:30:28 +0200
Message-ID: <CAPg+sBiCH12i6-WEx++zTbovn=2FZqKAKxfnGkruU_Ah-y-_4g@mail.gmail.com>
From: Pieter Wuille <pieter.wuille@gmail.com>
To: Thomas Zander <thomas@thomaszander.se>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e0118271e684054051cbb275f
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,
DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW
autolearn=ham version=3.3.1
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
smtp1.linux-foundation.org
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Fwd: Block size following technological growth
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Bitcoin Development Discussion <bitcoin-dev.lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/options/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 07 Aug 2015 16:30:31 -0000
--089e0118271e684054051cbb275f
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 6:06 PM, Thomas Zander via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> You make a logical fallacy;
>
> I would agree that nodes are there for people to stop trusting someone that
> they have no trust-relationship with.
>
Yay, trust!
> But your conclusion that low node count is an indication that its hard to
> run
> one discards your own point. You forget the point that running a node is
> only
> needed if you don't know anyone you can trust to run it for you. I'm
> pretty
> darn sure that this will have a bigger effect on nodecount than how hard it
> is.
>
I never said it is the only factor that influences node count.
Or, in other words, without a need to run a node you can't judge the
> difficulty of why there aren't more running.
>
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.
--
Pieter
--089e0118271e684054051cbb275f
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">On F=
ri, Aug 7, 2015 at 6:06 PM, Thomas Zander via bitcoin-dev <span dir=3D"ltr"=
><<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" target=3D"_bl=
ank">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockq=
uote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc =
solid;padding-left:1ex">You make a logical fallacy;<br>
<br>
I would agree that nodes are there for people to stop trusting someone that=
<br>
they have no trust-relationship with.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Y=
ay, trust! <br></div><div>=C2=A0</div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" sty=
le=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
But your conclusion that low node count is an indication that its hard to r=
un<br>
one discards your own point.=C2=A0 You forget the point that running a node=
is only<br>
needed if you don't know anyone you can trust to run it for you.=C2=A0 =
I'm pretty<br>
darn sure that this will have a bigger effect on nodecount than how hard it=
<br>
is.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I never said it is the only factor =
that influences node count.<br><br></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" =
style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
Or, in other words, without a need to run a node you can't judge the<br=
>
difficulty of why there aren't more running.<br></blockquote><div><br><=
/div><div>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 fund=
amental improvement over other systems is the lack of need for trust, I bel=
ieve that with increased adoption should also come an increased (in absolut=
e terms) incentive for people to use a full node. I'm seeing the opposi=
te trend, and that is worrying IMHO.<br><br>-- <br></div><div>Pieter<br><br=
></div></div></div></div>
--089e0118271e684054051cbb275f--
|
