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
129
130
131
132
133
|
Return-Path: <vitteaymeric@gmail.com>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 44DE4B4C
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Thu, 15 Dec 2016 18:12:11 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-wj0-f177.google.com (mail-wj0-f177.google.com
[209.85.210.177])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D7B052BC
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Thu, 15 Dec 2016 18:12:06 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-wj0-f177.google.com with SMTP id xy5so72435915wjc.0
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Thu, 15 Dec 2016 10:12:06 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025;
h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version
:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding;
bh=XN8gQBJrxpsUIJdj2XBZLAwwYzbmkR/o5qpoJggNPLM=;
b=nH3kEkm53iY/Du3yZwJw3kR8qUWlMTs4lGR/ezltRnAvn6vk8g/DT9jyor6qaFysRL
KheLIaaI+7G6pN/kYI9Z4b5baszndddOzNucHOxHE3Dslg4WFFGSSmVnZQeOSxGU5nJ4
cKwK+8HU4NhNc32Y4+/tK3/UOxkGkkG8/hShiN9BBK5TxL1AloLCNfw9oVfJljX1GGW+
nZ6pmX8Boa3ZWBGYwrihJ/QzqHvfM9r66FL/1/Ulx8H/HsK6i8nGjX8t6s8dFL/m4E8B
6BKuN88BByf9uOyjYYTB0hAGcq/72PodfCJ0ztI7+6Nw7t+2XZCCo3ObdCnJ4dhPrWoF
rXwg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=1e100.net; s=20161025;
h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:message-id:date
:user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding;
bh=XN8gQBJrxpsUIJdj2XBZLAwwYzbmkR/o5qpoJggNPLM=;
b=NanOoc3ifhUpBhOKW0dEH3c8DDkFoSGjqlF2LBXKlcxtKK/BMZlVUVEvAVn2iIj/Gj
aJ0wnlbqFe0fLxc+1q77DJhsCljcUOxK9TveBe2EpUS7buSpAxKcxH51ttE+vRcVWYjU
f4d4+U54QBCXainJ9CVFinQFCd5JEkPAaF+ERm6az7f70VmhoPr1RVAhwR5Pl/18C8Nf
rLL90rSlIFicv0lDz2apX7mL+ppSlfu34K8bHkd2MPP6R0dMUcMlfR173aeirL18dEkP
61at8E69wPdJsDxjihrKNpiR6843Mg+GFwlBMP4WnK3LD3fD9G77y88E64Y+2q1RvinT
Qlfw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AKaTC00sUtANo8yvwApOpnCJwUYeUS9nYCM6PotYiPwbbfjYExg4M3tOYvhqbofOuUjNpA==
X-Received: by 10.194.136.166 with SMTP id qb6mr2671811wjb.42.1481825525099;
Thu, 15 Dec 2016 10:12:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.1.10] (ANice-654-1-56-98.w83-201.abo.wanadoo.fr.
[83.201.227.98]) by smtp.googlemail.com with ESMTPSA id
c81sm3475916wmf.22.2016.12.15.10.12.03
(version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128);
Thu, 15 Dec 2016 10:12:04 -0800 (PST)
To: jg@112bit.com,
Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
References: <f27bd300c20d1b48cddc7e1d1dc1a96c@112bit.com>
<615c88d2a1263810923705c170b25d33@112bit.com>
From: Aymeric Vitte <vitteaymeric@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <116c835c-0f3a-b0d6-6d0a-10a959d2f4de@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2016 19:12:02 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/45.5.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <615c88d2a1263810923705c170b25d33@112bit.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.0 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,
DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, FREEMAIL_FROM,
RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE autolearn=ham version=3.3.1
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
smtp1.linux-foundation.org
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 15 Dec 2016 18:19:00 +0000
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Planned Obsolescence
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol 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: Thu, 15 Dec 2016 18:12:11 -0000
Maybe there are still some advantages but I don't know why this is not
considered as a major issue by the bitcoin community for the future and
why this looks to be never discussed:
- the size of the bitcoin network in terms of full nodes is ridiculous
and this is continuously decreasing, we cannot consider the bitcoin
network as a decentralized p2p network, what you are proposing is
logical but will of course amplify the problem
>For reasons I am unable to determine a significant number of node
operators do not upgrade their clients.
Why should they? What is the incentive for people to run full nodes and
upgrade? FYI I am part of the 2071 0.13.1 nodes for some good reasons
but will just shut it down when I am done, same for zcash (which as a
matter of fact I upgraded today since by some chance I noticed some
updates I was not aware of neither notified, just running it because I
need it from time to time and just don't kill it so I don't have to wait
for the restart process, maybe others are doing the same or just forgot
that they were running a full node)
Because, again, why should I or we maintain it/them?
I have looked at the proposals in the past (as well as the incentive
program) to reward those that are running full nodes but only found a
very few, never implemented (or even considered)
This is the very same for proposals allowing to start a full node from
zero in an acceptable timeframe (ie not 10 days in my case)
If the consensus is not to solve those two points and have a bitcoin
network controlled then it would be interesting to know why, so people
don't waste time trying to find solutions
Satoshi himself predicted that the full nodes will get centralized, I
think it's wrong, or in that case the bitcoin network cannot pretend to
be a decentralized immutable system (can be compared then to the Tor
network which does not pretend to be decentralized, because it is
centralized, and in addition does not encourage small nodes)
PS: IMHO the email notificiation system makes it difficult to follow
whom is answering to whom/what on this list compared to other lists
--
Zcash wallets made simple: https://github.com/Ayms/zcash-wallets
Bitcoin wallets made simple: https://github.com/Ayms/bitcoin-wallets
Get the torrent dynamic blocklist: http://peersm.com/getblocklist
Check the 10 M passwords list: http://peersm.com/findmyass
Anti-spies and private torrents, dynamic blocklist: http://torrent-live.org
Peersm : http://www.peersm.com
torrent-live: https://github.com/Ayms/torrent-live
node-Tor : https://www.github.com/Ayms/node-Tor
GitHub : https://www.github.com/Ayms
|
