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
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
|
Return-Path: <jaredr26@gmail.com>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D89DD941
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Wed, 29 Mar 2017 20:32:07 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-vk0-f45.google.com (mail-vk0-f45.google.com
[209.85.213.45])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3EEC0175
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Wed, 29 Mar 2017 20:32:07 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-vk0-f45.google.com with SMTP id s68so32022818vke.3
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Wed, 29 Mar 2017 13:32:07 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025;
h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to;
bh=Lqs2Jp2Ijs+FxaEW5ibN7FCktYOJp9msEMxfhK/lCGY=;
b=Nu8Iw1Z49pmeO67ZQh/k1NWIF71LGoqBMobInJ/6Yc4YAJCXdFNcI8YpPPo5M9b7is
lXvBSub28PGY5H+rswAGjd+kefIDLH7U0rImX/ep64rxc8vpf01am+Yazm9iw1BH8mW7
FoSqRjVHhLCJ5LgNl0NRo9qX7hPq9rPIPNnVKYHJVMkWil5SDS6OHG2GCq5X42+IqOQG
AXZnZnvkD73VM0p/GBtFil4km7wVn5YRrq42n9Ugoytq4RA7+4wox14ShCzqrl5B+Vij
Rhkfz7Z8qsdvIL0xUqGbbq0DdS/lOqpPIBJhw0Ch00MwL5o7b7rXR9e5tpG5/evCClbi
ltcQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=1e100.net; s=20161025;
h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date
:message-id:subject:to;
bh=Lqs2Jp2Ijs+FxaEW5ibN7FCktYOJp9msEMxfhK/lCGY=;
b=dBvr/+79t/xIQ2fUVNbH9O4Mn9HaTS7OPpIoC15Itd3qOT93JVRVy+Gk9iCgEye983
Z6UlL3Jx0zj+FZK6HCJXRCGX058BM6fD3r5+fwqM20DIwwIXZkfKi85oGbtPq4DMG4n2
AugcL2W5V+W8dfotdA1zfcBQrCth1f+9Na3lI5k8kZcwj4FbAZXuFkzDmO8Z1EOPQhSo
m4Qidte/PHDI1etxUwHa0MFfgyfb6J4TsmfU58f13OgycuUgjRj1aevosDfNny4hseOs
Sw03kALPrUPBrYq8mqZkDPIyqO+cIQFTL9DBY4azF/nVQ+vLH8F0vO2mUHJx2QpAtrEU
3wlg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AFeK/H1UOC1REa/hHhYczcDSpHuU7/XMSG1zPQvwWbKZTaYt11kUfqyQacKWmf8eQd3rTT4AvG8gG6KWyMGdUA==
X-Received: by 10.159.39.66 with SMTP id a60mr1180939uaa.28.1490819526316;
Wed, 29 Mar 2017 13:32:06 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.31.157.143 with HTTP; Wed, 29 Mar 2017 13:32:05 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAFVRnyqxQhu0c-ACfzR5=Z=C1SbR70jrfCaCeEdfSJASSnzpqw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAFzgq-xizPMNqfvW11nUhd6HmfZu8aGjcR9fshEsf6o5HOt_dA@mail.gmail.com>
<CAB-xxiPV9oN1r2hV5a=U1pcYuiZ_qmth-AM-H+1Cjgc2uw-0xA@mail.gmail.com>
<CAFVRnyr=cYf34X80+dLHwYEPHdqA7mMtYZ_gD6j09C+aM31gQQ@mail.gmail.com>
<f61153c3-9afb-5cee-2c6b-70d67208f015@gmail.com>
<CAFVRnyo1XGNbq_F8UfqqJWHCVH14iMCUMU-R5bOh+h3mtwSUJg@mail.gmail.com>
<CAFVRnyqxQhu0c-ACfzR5=Z=C1SbR70jrfCaCeEdfSJASSnzpqw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Jared Lee Richardson <jaredr26@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2017 13:32:05 -0700
Message-ID: <CAD1TkXtze_TVegXz4AeJCxK59+cuwRQ=w4upzX+HoQ90Py52OA@mail.gmail.com>
To: David Vorick <david.vorick@gmail.com>,
Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=94eb2c1228a64a59ae054be47846
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,
DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT,FREEMAIL_FROM,
HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE autolearn=no version=3.3.1
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
smtp1.linux-foundation.org
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 29 Mar 2017 20:33:07 +0000
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Hard fork proposal from last week's meeting
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: Wed, 29 Mar 2017 20:32:07 -0000
--94eb2c1228a64a59ae054be47846
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
> Perhaps you are fortunate to have a home computer that has more than a
single 512GB SSD. Lots of consumer hardware has that little storage.
That's very poor logic, sorry. Restricted-space SSD's are not a
cost-effective hardware option for running a node. Keeping blocksizes
small has significant other costs for everyone. Comparing the cost of
running a node under arbitrary conditons A, B, or C when there are far more
efficient options than any of those is a very bad way to think about the
costs of running a node. You basically have to ignore the significant
consequences of keeping blocks small.
If node operational costs rose to the point where an entire wide swath of
users that we do actually need for security purposes could not justify
running a node, that's something important for consideration. For me, that
translates to modern hardware that's relatively well aligned with the needs
of running a node - perhaps budget hardware, but still modern - and
above-average bandwidth caps.
You're free to disagree, but your example only makes sense to me if
blocksize caps didn't have serious consequences. Even if those
consequences are just the threat of a contentious fork by people who are
mislead about the real consequences, that threat is still a consequence
itself.
On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 9:18 AM, David Vorick via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> Perhaps you are fortunate to have a home computer that has more than a
> single 512GB SSD. Lots of consumer hardware has that little storage. Throw
> on top of it standard consumer usage, and you're often left with less than
> 200 GB of free space. Bitcoin consumes more than half of that, which feels
> very expensive, especially if it motivates you to buy another drive.
>
> I have talked to several people who cite this as the primary reason that
> they are reluctant to join the full node club.
>
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>
>
--94eb2c1228a64a59ae054be47846
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<div dir=3D"ltr">>=C2=A0<span style=3D"font-size:12.8px">Perhaps you are=
fortunate to have a home computer that has more than a single 512GB SSD. L=
ots of consumer hardware has that little storage.</span><br><br><span style=
=3D"font-size:12.8px">That's very poor logic, sorry.=C2=A0 Restricted-s=
pace SSD's are not a cost-effective hardware option for running a node.=
=C2=A0 Keeping blocksizes small has significant=C2=A0other costs for everyo=
ne.=C2=A0 Comparing the cost of running a node under arbitrary conditons A,=
B, or C when there are far more efficient options than any of those is a v=
ery bad way to think about the costs of running a node.=C2=A0 You basically=
have to ignore the significant consequences of keeping blocks small.<br><b=
r>If node operational costs rose to the point where an entire wide swath of=
users that we do actually need for security purposes could not justify run=
ning a node, that's something important for consideration.=C2=A0 For me=
, that translates to modern hardware that's relatively well aligned wit=
h the needs of running a node - perhaps budget hardware, but still modern -=
and above-average bandwidth caps.</span><div><span style=3D"font-size:12.8=
px"><br></span></div><div><span style=3D"font-size:12.8px">You're free =
to disagree, but your example only makes sense to me if blocksize caps didn=
't have serious consequences.=C2=A0 Even if those consequences are just=
the threat of a contentious fork by people who are mislead about the real =
consequences, that threat is still a consequence itself.</span></div></div>=
<div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Wed, Mar 29, 2=
017 at 9:18 AM, David Vorick via bitcoin-dev <span dir=3D"ltr"><<a href=
=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" target=3D"_blank">bitcoin=
-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class=
=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padd=
ing-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"auto"><div><div class=3D"gmail_extra">Perhaps you=
are fortunate to have a home computer that has more than a single 512GB SS=
D. Lots of consumer hardware has that little storage. Throw on top of it st=
andard consumer usage, and you're often left with less than 200 GB of f=
ree space. Bitcoin consumes more than half of that, which feels very expens=
ive, especially if it motivates you to buy another drive.</div></div><div c=
lass=3D"gmail_extra" dir=3D"auto"><br></div><div class=3D"gmail_extra" dir=
=3D"auto">I have talked to several people who cite this as the primary reas=
on that they are reluctant to join the full node club.</div></div>
<br>______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
bitcoin-dev mailing list<br>
<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org">bitcoin-dev@lists.=
<wbr>linuxfoundation.org</a><br>
<a href=3D"https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev" =
rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://lists.linuxfoundation.<wbr>org=
/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-<wbr>dev</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div>
--94eb2c1228a64a59ae054be47846--
|
