MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CADL_X_fs3-Zj-9nHu5HXCS=kNFUTJkrUR_8SL+d+M4ziwB66Jw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAPg+sBgs-ouEMu=LOVCmOyCGwfM1Ygxooz0shyvAuHDGGZYfJw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAPg+sBgugLSVEwDLXhgey86_rM2fTjGWXFuXsiZioJKCZiHiNg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CADm_WcbnQQGZoQ92twfUvbzqGwu__xLn+BYOkHPZY_YT1pFrbA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAPWm=eW8RgrG1CMEAMN4GeiMjZecFvNtZB_Y4rZNeofWSD0=Wg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CADm_WcYCUHs9Qe_T6WJOCUSK6stXYD8v6z5JcGHfRMURoOSFTA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CABm2gDq3JyZx0QCRDbcNSLSOBKdpi4h_7VN1XL8N42U38+eBAA@mail.gmail.com>
	<55B113AF.40500@thinlink.com>
	<CABsx9T1MTc-GmuQyFN1vaFK=CDWV_L214Pi9nR6jLMouQQD0fw@mail.gmail.com>
	<C5A70F53-4779-457A-A06A-686877706F89@gmail.com>
	<CADL_X_exckh5T2BfzPEp26fPR3TD69QarwroDEdS_9wtnKbf+g@mail.gmail.com>
	<6F436293-9E2B-461C-B105-FC4CF9EBFC69@gmail.com>
	<CADL_X_fs3-Zj-9nHu5HXCS=kNFUTJkrUR_8SL+d+M4ziwB66Jw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2015 22:26:19 +0200
Message-ID: <CABm2gDqFe+_g5Mk=tXCD94x74pu6SiL+XHhMM-T3bBw78m3Mow@mail.gmail.com>
From: =?UTF-8?B?Sm9yZ2UgVGltw7Nu?= <jtimon@jtimon.cc>
To: Jameson Lopp <jameson.lopp@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Cc: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin Core and hard forks
Precedence: list

On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 9:52 PM, Jameson Lopp via bitcoin-dev
<bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> Running a node certainly has real-world costs that shouldn't be ignored.
> There are plenty of advocates who argue that Bitcoin should strive to keep
> it feasible for the average user to run their own node (as opposed to
> Satoshi's vision of beefy servers in data centers.) My impression is that
> even most of these advocates agree that it will be acceptable to eventually
> increase block sizes as resources become faster and cheaper because it won't
> be 'pricing out' the average user from running their own node. If this is
> the case, it seems to me that we have a problem given that there is no
> established baseline for the acceptable performance / hardware cost
> requirements to run a node. I'd really like to see further clarification
> from these advocates around the acceptable cost of running a node and how we
> can measure the global reduction in hardware and bandwidth costs in order to
> establish a baseline that we can use to justify additional resource usage by
> nodes.

Although I don't have a concrete proposals myself, I agree that
without having any common notion of what the "minimal target hardware"
looks like, it is very difficult to discuss other things that depend
on that.
If there's data that shows that a 100 usd raspberry pi with a 1 MB
connection in say, India (I actually have no idea about internet
speeds there) size X is a viable full node, then I don't think anybody
can reasonably oppose to rising the block size to X, and such a
hardfork can perfectly be uncontroversial.
I'm exaggerating ultra-low specifications, but it's just an example to
illustrate your point.
There was a thread about formalizing such "minimum hardware
requirements", but I think the discussion simply finished there:
- Let's do this
- Yeah, let's do it
- +1, let's have concrete values, I generally agree.