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
|
Return-Path: <thomas@thomaszander.se>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9E6E1486
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 7 Aug 2015 16:12:18 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: delayed 00:06:03 by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from manxnetsf05.manx.net (outbound.manx.net [213.137.31.12])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B347C89
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 7 Aug 2015 16:12:17 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from 195.10.99.101 (EHLO coldstorage.localnet) ([195.10.99.101])
by manxnetsf05.manx.net (MOS 4.4.5a-GA FastPath queued)
with ESMTP id EFT72891; Fri, 07 Aug 2015 17:06:11 +0100 (BST)
From: Thomas Zander <thomas@thomaszander.se>
To: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Date: Fri, 07 Aug 2015 18:06:09 +0200
Message-ID: <1542978.eROxFinZd4@coldstorage>
User-Agent: KMail/4.14.1 (Linux/3.16.0-4-amd64; KDE/4.14.2; x86_64; ; )
In-Reply-To: <CAPg+sBj1qCRvtZ2F1v_1JUTqwws6JOmi+8BYKVoCWPRBSs-Y=g@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>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
X-Mirapoint-Received-SPF: 195.10.99.101 coldstorage.localnet
thomas@thomaszander.se 5 none
X-Junkmail-Status: score=10/50, host=manxnetsf05.manx.net
X-Junkmail-Signature-Raw: score=unknown,
refid=str=0001.0A0B0206.55C4D773.02FC, ss=1, re=0.000, recu=0.000,
reip=0.000, cl=1, cld=1, fgs=0, ip=0.0.0.0,
so=2014-07-29 09:23:55, dmn=2013-03-21 17:37:32,
mode=multiengine
X-Junkmail-IWF: false
X-Mirapoint-Virus-RAPID-Raw: score=unknown(0),
refid=str=0001.0A0B0206.55C4D773.02FC, ss=1, re=0.000, recu=0.000,
reip=0.000, cl=1, cld=1, fgs=0, ip=0.0.0.0,
so=2014-07-29 09:23:55, dmn=2013-03-21 17:37:32
X-Mirapoint-Loop-Id: f02ffc3b2fb7ead4ffeb73bd283e3060
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,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
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 16:12:18 -0000
On Thursday 6. August 2015 20.52.28 Pieter Wuille via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> It's about reduction of trust. Running a full node and using it verify your
> transactions is how you get personal assurance that everyone on the network
> is following the rules. And if you don't do so yourself, the knowledge that
> others are using full nodes and relying on them is valuable. Someone just
> running 1000 nodes in a data center and not using them for anything does
> not do anything for this, it's adding network capacity without use.
>
> That doesn't mean that the full node count (or the reachable full node
> count even) are meaningless numbers. They are an indication of how hard it
> is (for various reasons) to run/use a full node, and thus provide feedback.
> But they are not the goal, just an indicator.
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.
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.
Or, in other words, without a need to run a node you can't judge the
difficulty of why there aren't more running.
From another mail;
On Thursday 6. August 2015 17.26.11 Pieter Wuille via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> Maybe. But I believe that it is essential to not take unnecessary risks,
> and find a non-controversial solution.
This is a very political answer; it doesn't actually say anything since
'unnecessary' is a personal judgment. Everyone will agree with you, but that
doesn't mean anything.
--
Tom Zander
|
