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
|
Received: from sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.191]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-4.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <gmaxwell@gmail.com>) id 1Tg2qC-0002F2-AO
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Wed, 05 Dec 2012 00:27:56 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
designates 209.85.223.175 as permitted sender)
client-ip=209.85.223.175; envelope-from=gmaxwell@gmail.com;
helo=mail-ie0-f175.google.com;
Received: from mail-ie0-f175.google.com ([209.85.223.175])
by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1Tg2qB-0002tP-KN
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Wed, 05 Dec 2012 00:27:56 +0000
Received: by mail-ie0-f175.google.com with SMTP id qd14so7384823ieb.34
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Tue, 04 Dec 2012 16:27:50 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.50.163.99 with SMTP id yh3mr166830igb.29.1354667270417; Tue,
04 Dec 2012 16:27:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.64.171.73 with HTTP; Tue, 4 Dec 2012 16:27:50 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CALf2ePw82wt08_G2RtUYEBxorjY1ryZ4r+W7atSzDLYMU+rGGQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CANEZrP3=GdyTe+2=cp-ROOJ8_t=yCqO-7GQ4hA-3aksg46p+ww@mail.gmail.com>
<CAAS2fgQYV7aR86QOwvqMLpFZ+MAwSOSZvV6XuZdXvqjeYziRng@mail.gmail.com>
<CANEZrP3ZhNYrgQZT4qOohejs3yhgt0c_kT5zwAUVtPP1Q9f1Zg@mail.gmail.com>
<CAAS2fgSJhX4974BdWGdyJA13kHg7mTgHadC6UdhdUPu0bDDXFg@mail.gmail.com>
<CALf2ePw82wt08_G2RtUYEBxorjY1ryZ4r+W7atSzDLYMU+rGGQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2012 19:27:50 -0500
Message-ID: <CAAS2fgQewysOG7eOHQxmLup4oLJK=jY=q-_4qTL6yKQ855g3ew@mail.gmail.com>
From: Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell@gmail.com>
To: Alan Reiner <etotheipi@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Spam-Score: -1.6 (-)
X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net.
See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details.
-1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for
sender-domain
0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider
(gmaxwell[at]gmail.com)
-0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record
-0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from
author's domain
0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature,
not necessarily valid
-0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature
X-Headers-End: 1Tg2qB-0002tP-KN
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Roadmap to getting users onto SPV clients
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: Wed, 05 Dec 2012 00:27:56 -0000
On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 5:44 PM, Alan Reiner <etotheipi@gmail.com> wrote:
> Greg's point looks like it's veering towards "we don't want to grow
> the network unless we're going to get more full nodes out of it."
No=E2=80=A6
There is no fundamental completion between taking what actions we can
to maximize the decentralization of the network and making the
software maximally friendly and painless to get started with and use.
It's possible=E2=80=94 not even deep rocket science=E2=80=94 to create soft=
ware that
accommodates both.
And because of this, I don't think it's acceptable to promote
solutions which may endanger the decentralization that makes the
system worthwhile in the first place. If the current experience is so
poor that you'd even consider talking about promoting directions which
reduce its robustness then thats evidence that it would be worth
finding more resources to make the experience better without doing
anything the that reduces the model, even if you've got an argument
that maybe we can get away with it. If there isn't interest in
putting in more resources to make these improvements then maybe the
issue isn't as bad as we think it is?
> I think it is very much in everyone's interest here to encourage new user=
s to start "using" Bitcoin, even if they don't "support" it.
Absolutely=E2=80=94 and yet that has nothing to do with promoting software =
to
users which only consumes without directly contributing and which
doesn't even have the capability to do so even if the user wants to
(or much less, is indifferent).
|
