summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
diff options
context:
space:
mode:
authorIsidor Zeuner <cryptocurrencies@quidecco.de>2014-05-20 20:38:15 +0200
committerbitcoindev <bitcoindev@gnusha.org>2014-05-20 19:34:57 +0000
commit27bcdba2da1898e97b6242b270f8593125e85b08 (patch)
tree0580191c6d363529b512ca12b170ad271750369c
parentd9c2195d08d4d973305a4cc61e925b3ff9babde0 (diff)
downloadpi-bitcoindev-27bcdba2da1898e97b6242b270f8593125e85b08.tar.gz
pi-bitcoindev-27bcdba2da1898e97b6242b270f8593125e85b08.zip
Re: [Bitcoin-development] Why are we bleeding nodes?
-rw-r--r--9c/b0a559c4f04d511443b52f71a7b09908e4e07a94
1 files changed, 94 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/9c/b0a559c4f04d511443b52f71a7b09908e4e07a b/9c/b0a559c4f04d511443b52f71a7b09908e4e07a
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..0d95a0fa9
--- /dev/null
+++ b/9c/b0a559c4f04d511443b52f71a7b09908e4e07a
@@ -0,0 +1,94 @@
+Received: from sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.194]
+ helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
+ by sfs-ml-4.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
+ (envelope-from <cryptocurrencies@quidecco.de>) id 1WmpoP-0006J3-9f
+ for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
+ Tue, 20 May 2014 19:34:57 +0000
+X-ACL-Warn:
+Received: from quidecco.de ([81.169.136.15])
+ by sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256)
+ (Exim 4.76) id 1WmpoN-0004tH-QY
+ for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
+ Tue, 20 May 2014 19:34:57 +0000
+Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
+ by quidecco.de (Postfix) with SMTP id 2A186DF7279;
+ Tue, 20 May 2014 20:38:15 +0200 (CEST)
+From: Isidor Zeuner <cryptocurrencies@quidecco.de>
+To: Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net>
+References: <CANEZrP2bbFordbKdTWnMuCx0yQpL1D5-=_mK6VXPGB9ogDLDDw@mail.gmail.com>
+ <CAPg+sBhL+Lr_noM7hVB4w-tvX0LLK2bKbQTzAw=4WswyxNGboQ@mail.gmail.com>
+In-Reply-To: <CANEZrP2bbFordbKdTWnMuCx0yQpL1D5-=_mK6VXPGB9ogDLDDw@mail.gmail.com>
+Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
+Message-Id: <20140520183815.2A186DF7279@quidecco.de>
+Date: Tue, 20 May 2014 20:38:15 +0200 (CEST)
+X-Spam-Score: -0.7 (/)
+X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net.
+ See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details.
+ -0.7 RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay
+ domain
+X-Headers-End: 1WmpoN-0004tH-QY
+Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
+Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Why are we bleeding nodes?
+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, 20 May 2014 19:34:57 -0000
+
+> >
+> > In my opinion, the number of full nodes doesn't matter (as long as
+> > it's enough to satisfy demand by other nodes).
+> >
+>
+> Correct. Still, a high number of nodes has a few other benefits:
+>
+> 1) The more nodes there are, the cheaper it should be to run each one,
+> given that the bandwidth and CPU for serving the chain will be spread over
+> more people.
+>
+> 2) It makes Bitcoin *seem* bigger, more robust and more decentralised,
+> because there are more people uniting to run it. So there's a psychological
+> benefit.
+>
+
+Psychological benefit vs. effective benefit involves the danger of
+destroying trust in the Bitcoin network when there are hard facts for
+non-robustness while the node number looks big. Therefore, it may make
+sense to establish better metrics.
+
+> Also, we don't have a good way to measure capacity vs demand at the moment.
+> Whether we have enough capacity is rather a shot in the dark right now.
+>
+>
+> > What matters is how hard it is to run one.
+> >
+>
+> Which is why I'm interested to learn the reason behind the drop. Is it
+> insufficient interest, or is running a node too painful?
+>
+> For this purpose I'd like to exclude people running Bitcoin Core on laptops
+> or non-dedicated desktops. I don't think full nodes will ever make sense
+> for consumer wallets again, and I see the bleeding off of those people as
+> natural and expected (as Satoshi did). But if someone feels it's too hard
+> to run on a cheap server then that'd concern me.
+>
+
+In my opinion, the characteristic of being able to make use of
+non-dedicated nodes should be regarded as an advantage of the Bitcoin
+protocol, and not something to get rid of. Nodes being able to
+contribute this way may lead to even more robustness than
+decentralization alone, as they can do so without exposing a fixed
+address which could be attacked.
+
+Best regards,
+
+Isidor
+
+