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
|
Return-Path: <gavinandresen@gmail.com>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5A2D288B
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 7 Aug 2015 17:50:03 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-la0-f53.google.com (mail-la0-f53.google.com
[209.85.215.53])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 94C0A165
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 7 Aug 2015 17:50:02 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by lagz9 with SMTP id z9so26182877lag.3
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 07 Aug 2015 10:50:01 -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=iKZBiqtVg3PCFvE2drt8I6BakkScyX1zFHNS1V2Vlek=;
b=v6FHPJxy/w7l12ExldtOsQNUn5Bm3p21CIy8QukuJKn6o1PcUsFSJDiHIsi557sRfx
txvxu4ncsLriPsUx5L8m5m7QPe8z0I3UgsU/KduCKNm6RSX/C50kIrfPGnQJSda+jiBA
+PceL3s/7vZbwoICbBkhCJA2giMMMFn0VnXoWFiNqHMuYyTijRSIr8hhiGc56LKwPrhB
mZRC58qdXQ14bzEkNdWmcfNVggPbixyZDyZHG8lTjDgMQFnKEn1XpA3qJwSzYwofUd9X
4Lg5quTTt+WaFlzpv45EWhIQBGcRX+TLiPTyqJzz07APLcBJdDCfuBdFnVZiu7jqvcX7
FViw==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.152.22.99 with SMTP id c3mr9434788laf.32.1438969801016; Fri,
07 Aug 2015 10:50:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.25.143.195 with HTTP; Fri, 7 Aug 2015 10:50:00 -0700 (PDT)
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
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 17:50:03 -0000
--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"><<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" target=
=3D"_blank">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a>></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'=
;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'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=
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'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=
'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--
|
