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
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
|
Return-Path: <pieter.wuille@gmail.com>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BF3FC89D
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 7 Aug 2015 17:09:31 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-io0-f182.google.com (mail-io0-f182.google.com
[209.85.223.182])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1E0391E7
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 7 Aug 2015 17:09:31 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by iodd187 with SMTP id d187so117740008iod.2
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 07 Aug 2015 10:09:30 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to
:cc:content-type;
bh=TJH5o+xOuzymzA60BQihQrjr1/tOcbKilkIBTv4+7qE=;
b=aUJ7QFhmCUMfjHAL0v1O63nKZH8lnZaYGpBF/BsEPEmRdpYt+x+2fb7XbbxO4rOgJh
tfhe/TsnZ2a/1EsKY80u67wH06w2JxKbnhtOzeXKCbO3W1KLbCKR0zf7f7jj6c/8op4b
+VsxAUeHcHXvK7e6XQShbWLCU/VmFv6/pZaWRvpzNFEA4+N+COgBFk8EnkUdcYTKMmSf
NCBObK9sEWLbjrTrBmuFhKxCEOqn/p9cySZswylZtHf1n6QIWVN5BBCtLImeLuyLYVNS
ZrOQLLDy59KdYp0t5K0vCpbIjGLtvDWU1Bd152/hMLKlFoNYzH+9xCwgp2hIILHg9jMV
akqw==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.107.9.137 with SMTP id 9mr9400882ioj.50.1438967370612; Fri,
07 Aug 2015 10:09:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.36.77.201 with HTTP; Fri, 7 Aug 2015 10:09:30 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <3197878.6zmtLAPm4L@coldstorage>
References: <CAPg+sBj-wA1DMrwkQRWnzQoB5NR-q=2-5=WDAAUYfSpXRZSTqw@mail.gmail.com>
<1542978.eROxFinZd4@coldstorage>
<CAPg+sBiCH12i6-WEx++zTbovn=2FZqKAKxfnGkruU_Ah-y-_4g@mail.gmail.com>
<3197878.6zmtLAPm4L@coldstorage>
Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2015 19:09:30 +0200
Message-ID: <CAPg+sBgWrOUfD2LKgL-ziCkAgzGVU_W0_fK4w7wRPgjQ0L3JVg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Pieter Wuille <pieter.wuille@gmail.com>
To: Thomas Zander <thomas@thomaszander.se>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113f8f14f80471051cbbb2c8
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,
DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,HTML_MESSAGE,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 <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.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 17:09:31 -0000
--001a113f8f14f80471051cbbb2c8
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 7:00 PM, Thomas Zander via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> > If the incentives for running a node don't weight up against the
> > cost/difficulty using a full node yourself for a majority of people in
> the
> > ecosystem, I would argue that there is a problem. As Bitcoin's
> fundamental
> > improvement over other systems is the lack of need for trust, I believe
> > that with increased adoption should also come an increased (in absolute
> > terms) incentive for people to use a full node. I'm seeing the opposite
> > trend, and that is worrying IMHO.
>
> And you do the same thing again; you dismiss the need factor.
>
Of course there is a need. It's the primary mechanism that keeps Bitcoin
secure and immune from malicious influence.
Of course not everyone needs to run a node. But that leaves the
responsibility on us - the community - to help the situation by not making
it too hard to run a node. And I see the block size as the primary way
through which we do that.
If the impact of the system goes us, so should the - joint - incentives to
keep it secure. And I think we're (slowly) failing at that.
--
Pieter
--001a113f8f14f80471051cbbb2c8
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<div dir=3D"ltr">On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 7:00 PM, Thomas Zander via bitcoin-=
dev <span dir=3D"ltr"><<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundati=
on.org" target=3D"_blank">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a>></sp=
an> wrote:<br><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><blockq=
uote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc =
solid;padding-left:1ex"><span class=3D"">> If the incentives for running=
a node don't weight up against the<br>
> cost/difficulty using a full node yourself for a majority of people in=
the<br>
> ecosystem, I would argue that there is a problem. As Bitcoin's fun=
damental<br>
> improvement over other systems is the lack of need for trust, I believ=
e<br>
> that with increased adoption should also come an increased (in absolut=
e<br>
> terms) incentive for people to use a full node. I'm seeing the opp=
osite<br>
> trend, and that is worrying IMHO.<br>
<br>
</span>And you do the same thing again; you dismiss the need factor.<br></b=
lockquote><div><br></div><div>Of course there is a need. It's the prima=
ry mechanism that keeps Bitcoin secure and immune from malicious influence.=
<br><br></div><div>Of course not everyone needs to run a node. But that lea=
ves the responsibility on us - the community - to help the situation by not=
making it too hard to run a node. And I see the block size as the primary =
way through which we do that.<br><br></div><div>If the impact of the system=
goes us, so should the - joint - incentives to keep it secure. And I think=
we're (slowly) failing at that.<br></div><div><br>-- <br></div><div>Pi=
eter<br><br></div></div></div></div>
--001a113f8f14f80471051cbbb2c8--
|
