Return-Path: <jimmyjack@gmail.com>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
	[172.17.192.35])
	by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 47579BCE
	for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
	Wed, 15 Jul 2015 16:41:30 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-wg0-f48.google.com (mail-wg0-f48.google.com [74.125.82.48])
	by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 51F4A140
	for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
	Wed, 15 Jul 2015 16:41:29 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by wgmn9 with SMTP id n9so38293411wgm.0
	for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
	Wed, 15 Jul 2015 09:41:28 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
	h=content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc
	:message-id:references:to;
	bh=7pl4DrsGZQjG9jEjdQGfkVye04rNQKjXAZduzWUL0jE=;
	b=SQQhpIY3pWSurbo8mP2k0ICJxF6D3EXsMdmFOusz7SFzyOhxSXBJpNbBwlS6bJIpa9
	qwPbryu7fTkbs9ac0kyp9yeKnF4X/eTg3zj9HKocyTsTednbUo2wi7ydH5RmXqkvdpd0
	hOwPKlRpBsXq0Q2b3L+KVf9hYSW313Ac7s2jZhXy5tVJJ1aL9x7HFSA2sTtiwbKBs/u+
	5dtWwJ4Zvssy7ySV15JyDdzW8N/di/iJ28LJAcwbGBv4JvguzLQGi8Y7AP6jF8MINgG5
	FoC4mzn+xrcdsh0o2vCYzTDmmu5VYEL6Qm+llJd5cMg19qHEwxKXT9vCvrbSutH7t9wt
	3L0w==
X-Received: by 10.180.82.199 with SMTP id k7mr781221wiy.54.1436978488054;
	Wed, 15 Jul 2015 09:41:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.0.0.210] ([194.46.128.92]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id
	dl10sm8689211wjb.42.2015.07.15.09.41.25
	(version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128);
	Wed, 15 Jul 2015 09:41:27 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
	boundary="Apple-Mail=_812369B3-EBA1-45A7-B3AF-E503A14C8FA6"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.0 \(3067\))
From: Me <jimmyjack@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAPg+sBgb6fGT524U4xi_GDrOio2uKMe4Z798699CknvtaBdcqw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2015 09:41:24 -0700
Message-Id: <A0CA5CBA-ADCC-4D6C-A419-4EA48ECDD143@gmail.com>
References: <24662b038abc45da7f3990e12a649b8a@airmail.cc>
	<55A66FA9.4010506@thinlink.com>
	<20150715151825.GB20029@savin.petertodd.org>
	<CDB5FC27-F3F0-44F7-BBC6-670ACAE740D2@gmail.com>
	<20150715155903.GC20029@savin.petertodd.org>
	<E724A120-7F85-488B-81CD-B1CD8EB227E3@gmail.com>
	<CAPg+sBgb6fGT524U4xi_GDrOio2uKMe4Z798699CknvtaBdcqw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Pieter Wuille <pieter.wuille@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3067)
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,
	DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, FREEMAIL_FROM, HTML_MESSAGE,
	MIME_QP_LONG_LINE, 
	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
Cc: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Significant losses by double-spending unconfirmed
	transactions
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: Wed, 15 Jul 2015 16:41:30 -0000


--Apple-Mail=_812369B3-EBA1-45A7-B3AF-E503A14C8FA6
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset=utf-8

> It's such a misconception that running many nodes somehow helps. It's =
much better that you run and control one or a few full nodes which you =
actually use to validate your transactions, than to run 1000s of nodes =
in third party datacenters. The latter only looks more decentralized.


I guess we sort of disagree here, perhaps my word =E2=80=9Cstrength=E2=80=9D=
 was not the right word. Yes, running 6000 vs 7000 nodes makes no =
difference for the network strength, but (a) running 50 nodes vs 5000 =
does make a difference. I would love to see how the number of nodes drop =
if companies like blockcypher turn off their servers. Obviously it would =
not go 50. (b) running different clients (if blockcypher runs =
non-reference-bitcoinD client) makes the network less open wide-spread =
bugs


I feel we are really derailing the original topic btw  :-)





> On Jul 15, 2015, at 9:11 AM, Pieter Wuille <pieter.wuille@gmail.com> =
wrote:
>=20
> On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 12:06 PM, Me via bitcoin-dev =
<bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org =
<mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>> wrote:
> Have you talk to them? If not, how can you be sure they don=E2=80=99t =
run large number of standard nodes and actually make the network =
stronger? Personally I never bring claims like this if I just assume. A =
lot of people in the community really trust you, do you realize you =
potentially hurt them for no reason?
>=20
> Running normal full nodes only provides extra service to nodes =
synchronizing and lightweight clients. It does not "make the network =
stronger" in the sense that it does not reduce the trust the =
participants need to have in each other.
>=20
> It's such a misconception that running many nodes somehow helps. It's =
much better that you run and control one or a few full nodes which you =
actually use to validate your transactions, than to run 1000s of nodes =
in third party datacenters. The latter only looks more decentralized.
>=20
> --=20
> Pieter
>=20


--Apple-Mail=_812369B3-EBA1-45A7-B3AF-E503A14C8FA6
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset=utf-8

<html><head><meta http-equiv=3D"Content-Type" content=3D"text/html =
charset=3Dutf-8"></head><body style=3D"word-wrap: break-word; =
-webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;" =
class=3D""><div class=3D""><blockquote type=3D"cite" class=3D""><div =
dir=3D"ltr" class=3D""><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><div =
class=3D"gmail_quote"><div class=3D"">It's such a misconception that =
running many nodes somehow helps. It's much better that you run and =
control one or a few full nodes which you actually use to validate your =
transactions, than to run 1000s of nodes in third party datacenters. The =
latter only looks more =
decentralized.</div></div></div></div></blockquote></div><div =
class=3D""><br class=3D""></div><div class=3D"">I guess we sort of =
disagree here, perhaps my word =E2=80=9Cstrength=E2=80=9D was not the =
right word. Yes, running 6000 vs 7000 nodes makes no difference for the =
network strength, but (a) running 50 nodes vs 5000 does make a =
difference. I would love to see how the number of nodes drop if =
companies like blockcypher turn off their servers. Obviously it would =
not go 50. (b) running different clients (if blockcypher runs =
non-reference-bitcoinD client) makes the network less open wide-spread =
bugs</div><div class=3D""><br class=3D""></div><div class=3D""><br =
class=3D""></div><div class=3D"">I feel we are really derailing the =
original topic btw &nbsp;:-)</div><div class=3D""><br =
class=3D""></div><div class=3D""><br class=3D""></div><div class=3D""><br =
class=3D""></div><div class=3D""><br class=3D""></div><br =
class=3D""><div><blockquote type=3D"cite" class=3D""><div class=3D"">On =
Jul 15, 2015, at 9:11 AM, Pieter Wuille &lt;<a =
href=3D"mailto:pieter.wuille@gmail.com" =
class=3D"">pieter.wuille@gmail.com</a>&gt; wrote:</div><br =
class=3D"Apple-interchange-newline"><div class=3D""><div dir=3D"ltr" =
class=3D"">On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 12:06 PM, Me via bitcoin-dev <span =
dir=3D"ltr" class=3D"">&lt;<a =
href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" target=3D"_blank" =
class=3D"">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a>&gt;</span> =
wrote:<br class=3D""><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><div =
class=3D"gmail_quote"><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 =
0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Have you talk to =
them? If not, how can you be sure they don=E2=80=99t run large number of =
standard nodes and actually make the network stronger? Personally I =
never bring claims like this if I just assume. A lot of people in the =
community really trust you, do you realize you potentially hurt them for =
no reason?<br class=3D""></blockquote><div class=3D""><br =
class=3D""></div><div class=3D"">Running normal full nodes only provides =
extra service to nodes synchronizing and lightweight clients. It does =
not "make the network stronger" in the sense that it does not reduce the =
trust the participants need to have in each other.<br class=3D""><br =
class=3D""></div><div class=3D"">It's such a misconception that running =
many nodes somehow helps. It's much better that you run and control one =
or a few full nodes which you actually use to validate your =
transactions, than to run 1000s of nodes in third party datacenters. The =
latter only looks more decentralized.<br class=3D""><br =
class=3D""></div><div class=3D"">-- <br class=3D""></div><div =
class=3D"">Pieter<br class=3D""><br class=3D""></div></div></div></div>
</div></blockquote></div><br class=3D""></body></html>=

--Apple-Mail=_812369B3-EBA1-45A7-B3AF-E503A14C8FA6--