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
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
|
Received: from sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.191]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-1.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <kgreenek@gmail.com>) id 1Z4i8c-0001wb-3F
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Tue, 16 Jun 2015 04:06:14 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
designates 74.125.82.42 as permitted sender)
client-ip=74.125.82.42; envelope-from=kgreenek@gmail.com;
helo=mail-wg0-f42.google.com;
Received: from mail-wg0-f42.google.com ([74.125.82.42])
by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1Z4i8a-0005pQ-Us
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Tue, 16 Jun 2015 04:06:14 +0000
Received: by wgzl5 with SMTP id l5so3073749wgz.3
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Mon, 15 Jun 2015 21:06:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 10.180.188.109 with SMTP id fz13mr2087279wic.74.1434427566999;
Mon, 15 Jun 2015 21:06:06 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.27.20.1 with HTTP; Mon, 15 Jun 2015 21:05:46 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAEY8wq4SOddGUJNqkrdhhfQEn4tXehCWiifk-P=PYUdfFcXFTQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CALqxMTHrnSS9MGgKO-5+=fVhiOOvk12Recs11S0PcSUxQT1wdQ@mail.gmail.com>
<CA+c4Zoy6U9RXH3Qw15sXXnaeYL-9PFbnTp=VLAJsvpC_zoAK_A@mail.gmail.com>
<CAEY8wq41ftFA1ObyUWiRGOgebwqDCAw_j+hU6_wfcXv5GSZaJw@mail.gmail.com>
<201506160341.10994.luke@dashjr.org>
<CAEY8wq4SOddGUJNqkrdhhfQEn4tXehCWiifk-P=PYUdfFcXFTQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Kevin Greene <kgreenek@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2015 21:05:46 -0700
Message-ID: <CAEY8wq4bQFqNBSkpSi5b1ZnvU57xb73F8xRVRyWUp1n1mbfADA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Luke Dashjr <luke@dashjr.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c25f68964ddf05189ab18d
X-Spam-Score: -0.3 (/)
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
(kgreenek[at]gmail.com)
-0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record
1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message
-0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from
author's domain
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
0.2 AWL AWL: Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address
X-Headers-End: 1Z4i8a-0005pQ-Us
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] The Bitcoin Node Market
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: Tue, 16 Jun 2015 04:06:14 -0000
--001a11c25f68964ddf05189ab18d
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Just thinking off the top of my head here:
What if SPV wallets were exempt from the fee? Only full nodes would pay
other full nodes when initially sync'ing the blockchain. Then as long as
you keep your full node running for a long period of time, you'll
eventually make back the cost you paid to sync initially. This at least
incentives full node operators to keep their node running for as long as
possible once started.
This still imposes a worse UX on casual users who want full node security,
but don't want to run a server 24/7 (or perhaps simply aren't aware that
they have to). These users will watch their balance wither away each time
they open their wallet, but it would be very difficult to explain to them
why that is happening. It would just be frustrating and confusing.
Also, what happens when a user runs Bitcoin-QT for the first time after
downloading it to try it out? They wouldn't be able to sync the blockchain.
Even if the wallet has a balance, how would the wallet be able to see that
it has UTXO's without the ability to sync with the network for free?
On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 8:49 PM, Kevin Greene <kgreenek@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 8:41 PM, Luke Dashjr <luke@dashjr.org> wrote:
>
>> On Tuesday, June 16, 2015 3:30:44 AM Kevin Greene wrote:
>> > Would SPV wallets have to pay to connect to the network too? From the
>> > user's perspective, it would be somewhat upsetting (and confusing) to
>> see
>> > your balance slowly draining every time you open your wallet app. It
>> would
>> > also tie up outputs every time you open up your wallet. You may go to
>> pay
>> > for something in a coffee shop, only to find that you can't spend your
>> > bitcoin because the wallet had to create a transaction to pay to sync
>> with
>> > the network.
>> >
>> > Also, users of centralized wallet services like Coinbase would not hav=
e
>> to
>> > pay that fee; but users of native wallets like breadwallet would have =
no
>> > such option. This incentivizes users to use centralized wallets.
>> >
>> > So this is kind of imposing a worse user experience on users who want =
to
>> > use bitcoin the "right" way. That doesn't seem like a good thing to me
>> :/
>>
>> SPV isn't the "right" way either ;)
>>
>
> =E2=80=8BHah, fair enough, there is no such thing as the "right" way to d=
o
> anything. But I still think punishing users who use SPV wallets is =E2=80=
=8Ba
> less-than-ideal way to incentive people to run full nodes. Right now SPV =
is
> the best way that exists for mobile phones to participate in the network =
in
> a decentralized way. This proposal makes the user experience for mobile
> wallets a little more confusing and annoying.
>
>
>>
>> If you're running a full node (the real "right way"), you should be able
>> to
>> earn more bitcoins than you pay out.
>>
>> Luke
>>
>
>
--001a11c25f68964ddf05189ab18d
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<div dir=3D"ltr"><div class=3D"gmail_default" style=3D"color:#336666">Just =
thinking off the top of my head here:</div><div class=3D"gmail_default" sty=
le=3D"color:#336666"><br></div><div class=3D"gmail_default" style=3D"color:=
#336666">What if SPV wallets were exempt from the fee? Only full nodes woul=
d pay other full nodes when initially sync'ing the blockchain. Then as =
long as you keep your full node running for a long period of time, you'=
ll eventually make back the cost you paid to sync initially. This at least =
incentives full node operators to keep their node running for as long as po=
ssible once started.</div><div class=3D"gmail_default" style=3D"color:#3366=
66"><br></div><div class=3D"gmail_default" style=3D"color:#336666">This sti=
ll imposes a worse UX on casual users who want full node security, but don&=
#39;t want to run a server 24/7 (or perhaps simply aren't aware that th=
ey have to). These users will watch their balance wither away each time the=
y open their wallet, but it would be very difficult to explain to them why =
that is happening. It would just be frustrating and confusing.</div><div cl=
ass=3D"gmail_default" style=3D"color:#336666"><br></div><div class=3D"gmail=
_default" style=3D"color:#336666">Also, what happens when a user runs Bitco=
in-QT for the first time after downloading it to try it out? They wouldn=
9;t be able to sync the blockchain. Even if the wallet has a balance, how w=
ould the wallet be able to see that it has UTXO's without the ability t=
o sync with the network for free?</div><div class=3D"gmail_default" style=
=3D"color:#336666"><br></div></div><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><div clas=
s=3D"gmail_quote">On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 8:49 PM, Kevin Greene <span dir=
=3D"ltr"><<a href=3D"mailto:kgreenek@gmail.com" target=3D"_blank">kgreen=
ek@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" sty=
le=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div d=
ir=3D"ltr"><div class=3D"gmail_default" style=3D"color:#336666"><br></div><=
div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><span class=3D"">O=
n Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 8:41 PM, Luke Dashjr <span dir=3D"ltr"><<a href=
=3D"mailto:luke@dashjr.org" target=3D"_blank">luke@dashjr.org</a>></span=
> wrote:<br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;bo=
rder-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><span>On Tuesday, June 16, 2015 =
3:30:44 AM Kevin Greene wrote:<br>
> Would SPV wallets have to pay to connect to the network too? From the<=
br>
> user's perspective, it would be somewhat upsetting (and confusing)=
to see<br>
> your balance slowly draining every time you open your wallet app. It w=
ould<br>
> also tie up outputs every time you open up your wallet. You may go to =
pay<br>
> for something in a coffee shop, only to find that you can't spend =
your<br>
> bitcoin because the wallet had to create a transaction to pay to sync =
with<br>
> the network.<br>
><br>
> Also, users of centralized wallet services like Coinbase would not hav=
e to<br>
> pay that fee; but users of native wallets like breadwallet would have =
no<br>
> such option. This incentivizes users to use centralized wallets.<br>
><br>
> So this is kind of imposing a worse user experience on users who want =
to<br>
> use bitcoin the "right" way. That doesn't seem like a go=
od thing to me :/<br>
<br>
</span>SPV isn't the "right" way either ;)<br></blockquote><d=
iv><br></div></span><div><div class=3D"gmail_default" style=3D"color:rgb(51=
,102,102)">=E2=80=8BHah, fair enough, there is no such thing as the "r=
ight" way to do anything. But I still think punishing users who use SP=
V wallets is =E2=80=8Ba less-than-ideal way to incentive people to run full=
nodes. Right now SPV is the best way that exists for mobile phones to part=
icipate in the network in a decentralized way. This proposal makes the user=
experience for mobile wallets a little more confusing and annoying.</div><=
/div><span class=3D""><div>=C2=A0</div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" st=
yle=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<br>
If you're running a full node (the real "right way"), you sho=
uld be able to<br>
earn more bitcoins than you pay out.<br>
<span><font color=3D"#888888"><br>
Luke<br>
</font></span></blockquote></span></div><br></div></div>
</blockquote></div><br></div>
--001a11c25f68964ddf05189ab18d--
|
