diff options
author | Isidor Zeuner <cryptocurrencies@quidecco.de> | 2014-05-20 20:38:15 +0200 |
---|---|---|
committer | bitcoindev <bitcoindev@gnusha.org> | 2014-05-20 19:34:57 +0000 |
commit | 27bcdba2da1898e97b6242b270f8593125e85b08 (patch) | |
tree | 0580191c6d363529b512ca12b170ad271750369c | |
parent | d9c2195d08d4d973305a4cc61e925b3ff9babde0 (diff) | |
download | pi-bitcoindev-27bcdba2da1898e97b6242b270f8593125e85b08.tar.gz pi-bitcoindev-27bcdba2da1898e97b6242b270f8593125e85b08.zip |
Re: [Bitcoin-development] Why are we bleeding nodes?
-rw-r--r-- | 9c/b0a559c4f04d511443b52f71a7b09908e4e07a | 94 |
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 + + |