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
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
|
Return-Path: <vitteaymeric@gmail.com>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7E016B9B
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Wed, 29 Mar 2017 22:33:20 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-wr0-f172.google.com (mail-wr0-f172.google.com
[209.85.128.172])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 15389161
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Wed, 29 Mar 2017 22:33:19 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-wr0-f172.google.com with SMTP id l43so36189992wre.1
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Wed, 29 Mar 2017 15:33:18 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025;
h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version
:in-reply-to; bh=REBhTy93BvwyTitAFNG8/0gQE4mf3hYfA9x0KCYNtt0=;
b=rbZiCQwcmDyBPNsaQu+QFC3ydcaLUhtkVjwYqtacHx0NjEx0heQwy07BIMBYvRBnni
IT2nS+R+Gt8NHVDDJMu3EBOLAqL4glxtcIDje3/ifm+P/lODXBQmeF2Hw4BpQavHKCuS
+bKwhPClAvYh0feaeDPVgjV8cu6QU/45gyPSNHAYleFaJpZ1cyJ/VNK/ZO0CZDaEtSaC
XLDCuAAM6HzZ142pDME5PYqdJTwcjTy/LB5YsEeiCXJej8TvcdKKurtY18K2roIe/sNV
xZXtgAeHQpKzdKgujQHo10u8AhCOFWw2IAXhk9FUZ8fGKCTT+gw4q7VsP4Q0aDHbb9iQ
BVhA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=1e100.net; s=20161025;
h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:message-id:date
:user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to;
bh=REBhTy93BvwyTitAFNG8/0gQE4mf3hYfA9x0KCYNtt0=;
b=cUA7MjwjvCQqB7GG8mxF9LTlMMtNnumm5pdZMqcD5lryMPFLShjadxU8y8dmk58C2f
8C+iDchtad4m7rJIkXVGnCMiVJYkUE7IlNnvEZaCDv16wCl0dtl7I39iIHfcTFwwQiTb
6j+8J0j2UqAAL5OUkapOjBuNNdSF25GXcSXxD0DpxBNIycuatG4lJWhpdo6QMcRIZTRv
R8ShCnSneIXYMcfdOQaU81sZ4H1yDKmKASaZYzgBhxit2mLwIVJKvm+JX5cTQun8N7uA
R9laHfys5FChU+Z/FjAKGS01fr2H2UrV82SJLPAtzuok2Zw6PlTI182WpriWbhs8dmM8
ud9A==
X-Gm-Message-State: AFeK/H0BlKDYsCufUTsrqsAmmYEp7CdFmIKS/4BwJJc1w6Qa8crAmOt+ePl1AJL52MEvdA==
X-Received: by 10.223.171.11 with SMTP id q11mr2577415wrc.35.1490826797773;
Wed, 29 Mar 2017 15:33:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.10] (ANice-654-1-52-124.w83-201.abo.wanadoo.fr.
[83.201.223.124]) by smtp.googlemail.com with ESMTPSA id
w130sm810266wmg.0.2017.03.29.15.33.16
(version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128);
Wed, 29 Mar 2017 15:33:16 -0700 (PDT)
To: Jared Lee Richardson <jaredr26@gmail.com>,
Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
References: <CAFzgq-xizPMNqfvW11nUhd6HmfZu8aGjcR9fshEsf6o5HOt_dA@mail.gmail.com>
<CAB-xxiPV9oN1r2hV5a=U1pcYuiZ_qmth-AM-H+1Cjgc2uw-0xA@mail.gmail.com>
<CAFVRnyr=cYf34X80+dLHwYEPHdqA7mMtYZ_gD6j09C+aM31gQQ@mail.gmail.com>
<f61153c3-9afb-5cee-2c6b-70d67208f015@gmail.com>
<CAFVRnyo1XGNbq_F8UfqqJWHCVH14iMCUMU-R5bOh+h3mtwSUJg@mail.gmail.com>
<CAFVRnyqxQhu0c-ACfzR5=Z=C1SbR70jrfCaCeEdfSJASSnzpqw@mail.gmail.com>
<CAD1TkXtze_TVegXz4AeJCxK59+cuwRQ=w4upzX+HoQ90Py52OA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Aymeric Vitte <vitteaymeric@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <2349f523-942c-ffb9-7af2-5cc81264888f@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2017 00:33:20 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/45.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAD1TkXtze_TVegXz4AeJCxK59+cuwRQ=w4upzX+HoQ90Py52OA@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="------------51C698277D8F2523AB7BAD2F"
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.0 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,
DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, FREEMAIL_FROM, HTML_MESSAGE,
RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE autolearn=ham version=3.3.1
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
smtp1.linux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Hard fork proposal from last week's meeting
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol 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: Wed, 29 Mar 2017 22:33:20 -0000
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------51C698277D8F2523AB7BAD2F
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
I have heard such theory before, it's a complete mistake to think that
others would run full nodes to protect their business and then yours,
unless it is proven that they are decentralized and independent
Running a full node is trivial and not expensive for people who know how
to do it, even with much bigger blocks, assuming that the full nodes are
still decentralized and that they don't have to fight against big nodes
who would attract the traffic first
I have posted many times here a small proposal, that exactly describes
what is going on now, yes miners are nodes too... it's disturbing to see
that despite of Tera bytes of BIPs, papers, etc the current situation is
happening and that all the supposed decentralized system is biased by
centralization
Do we know what majority controls the 6000 full nodes?
Le 29/03/2017 à 22:32, Jared Lee Richardson via bitcoin-dev a écrit :
> > Perhaps you are fortunate to have a home computer that has more than
> a single 512GB SSD. Lots of consumer hardware has that little storage.
>
> That's very poor logic, sorry. Restricted-space SSD's are not a
> cost-effective hardware option for running a node. Keeping blocksizes
> small has significant other costs for everyone. Comparing the cost of
> running a node under arbitrary conditons A, B, or C when there are far
> more efficient options than any of those is a very bad way to think
> about the costs of running a node. You basically have to ignore the
> significant consequences of keeping blocks small.
>
> If node operational costs rose to the point where an entire wide swath
> of users that we do actually need for security purposes could not
> justify running a node, that's something important for consideration.
> For me, that translates to modern hardware that's relatively well
> aligned with the needs of running a node - perhaps budget hardware,
> but still modern - and above-average bandwidth caps.
>
> You're free to disagree, but your example only makes sense to me if
> blocksize caps didn't have serious consequences. Even if those
> consequences are just the threat of a contentious fork by people who
> are mislead about the real consequences, that threat is still a
> consequence itself.
>
> On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 9:18 AM, David Vorick via bitcoin-dev
> <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>> wrote:
>
> Perhaps you are fortunate to have a home computer that has more
> than a single 512GB SSD. Lots of consumer hardware has that little
> storage. Throw on top of it standard consumer usage, and you're
> often left with less than 200 GB of free space. Bitcoin consumes
> more than half of that, which feels very expensive, especially if
> it motivates you to buy another drive.
>
> I have talked to several people who cite this as the primary
> reason that they are reluctant to join the full node club.
>
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
> <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
--
Zcash wallets made simple: https://github.com/Ayms/zcash-wallets
Bitcoin wallets made simple: https://github.com/Ayms/bitcoin-wallets
Get the torrent dynamic blocklist: http://peersm.com/getblocklist
Check the 10 M passwords list: http://peersm.com/findmyass
Anti-spies and private torrents, dynamic blocklist: http://torrent-live.org
Peersm : http://www.peersm.com
torrent-live: https://github.com/Ayms/torrent-live
node-Tor : https://www.github.com/Ayms/node-Tor
GitHub : https://www.github.com/Ayms
--------------51C698277D8F2523AB7BAD2F
Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<p>I have heard such theory before, it's a complete mistake to think
that others would run full nodes to protect their business and
then yours, unless it is proven that they are decentralized and
independent</p>
<p>Running a full node is trivial and not expensive for people who
know how to do it, even with much bigger blocks, assuming that the
full nodes are still decentralized and that they don't have to
fight against big nodes who would attract the traffic first<br>
</p>
<p>I have posted many times here a small proposal, that exactly
describes what is going on now, yes miners are nodes too... it's
disturbing to see that despite of Tera bytes of BIPs, papers, etc
the current situation is happening and that all the supposed
decentralized system is biased by centralization</p>
<p>Do we know what majority controls the 6000 full nodes?</p>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Le 29/03/2017 à 22:32, Jared Lee
Richardson via bitcoin-dev a écrit :<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAD1TkXtze_TVegXz4AeJCxK59+cuwRQ=w4upzX+HoQ90Py52OA@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">> <span style="font-size:12.8px">Perhaps you are
fortunate to have a home computer that has more than a single
512GB SSD. Lots of consumer hardware has that little storage.</span><br>
<br>
<span style="font-size:12.8px">That's very poor logic, sorry.
Restricted-space SSD's are not a cost-effective hardware
option for running a node. Keeping blocksizes small has
significant other costs for everyone. Comparing the cost of
running a node under arbitrary conditons A, B, or C when there
are far more efficient options than any of those is a very bad
way to think about the costs of running a node. You basically
have to ignore the significant consequences of keeping blocks
small.<br>
<br>
If node operational costs rose to the point where an entire
wide swath of users that we do actually need for security
purposes could not justify running a node, that's something
important for consideration. For me, that translates to
modern hardware that's relatively well aligned with the needs
of running a node - perhaps budget hardware, but still modern
- and above-average bandwidth caps.</span>
<div><span style="font-size:12.8px"><br>
</span></div>
<div><span style="font-size:12.8px">You're free to disagree, but
your example only makes sense to me if blocksize caps didn't
have serious consequences. Even if those consequences are
just the threat of a contentious fork by people who are
mislead about the real consequences, that threat is still a
consequence itself.</span></div>
</div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 9:18 AM, David
Vorick via bitcoin-dev <span dir="ltr"><<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org"
target="_blank">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div dir="auto">
<div>
<div class="gmail_extra">Perhaps you are fortunate to
have a home computer that has more than a single 512GB
SSD. Lots of consumer hardware has that little
storage. Throw on top of it standard consumer usage,
and you're often left with less than 200 GB of free
space. Bitcoin consumes more than half of that, which
feels very expensive, especially if it motivates you
to buy another drive.</div>
</div>
<div class="gmail_extra" dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_extra" dir="auto">I have talked to
several people who cite this as the primary reason that
they are reluctant to join the full node club.</div>
</div>
<br>
______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
bitcoin-dev mailing list<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org">bitcoin-dev@lists.<wbr>linuxfoundation.org</a><br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev"
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.linuxfoundation.<wbr>org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-<wbr>dev</a><br>
<br>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev">https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
Zcash wallets made simple: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://github.com/Ayms/zcash-wallets">https://github.com/Ayms/zcash-wallets</a>
Bitcoin wallets made simple: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://github.com/Ayms/bitcoin-wallets">https://github.com/Ayms/bitcoin-wallets</a>
Get the torrent dynamic blocklist: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://peersm.com/getblocklist">http://peersm.com/getblocklist</a>
Check the 10 M passwords list: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://peersm.com/findmyass">http://peersm.com/findmyass</a>
Anti-spies and private torrents, dynamic blocklist: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://torrent-live.org">http://torrent-live.org</a>
Peersm : <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.peersm.com">http://www.peersm.com</a>
torrent-live: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://github.com/Ayms/torrent-live">https://github.com/Ayms/torrent-live</a>
node-Tor : <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.github.com/Ayms/node-Tor">https://www.github.com/Ayms/node-Tor</a>
GitHub : <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.github.com/Ayms">https://www.github.com/Ayms</a></pre>
</body>
</html>
--------------51C698277D8F2523AB7BAD2F--
|
