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
|
Return-Path: <gmaxwell@gmail.com>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4993D7D
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Mon, 17 Aug 2015 19:28:03 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-ig0-f172.google.com (mail-ig0-f172.google.com
[209.85.213.172])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 44936134
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Mon, 17 Aug 2015 19:28:02 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by igui7 with SMTP id i7so63251461igu.0
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Mon, 17 Aug 2015 12:28:01 -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=Xc6FSEIZXNtrQEMKrKmhwmjM1z+glMuQ9q8gpKJIQ8U=;
b=khOghmZLavEj2DdYuzI62+trzzk3knVrCb/gdlz4yBRZZ2zsyzbbFr2v0VzmNFsqsO
nLSGoYikk+n6xsziNsHBPeSOAvZH58ZvqEufHyYE+pLd7NSJRwdkimeEeFzbtJ4L9VLi
SGmNOmQUPHe3zPeQMDV9B4BTB5Nb2inEOzuT5GOdI9xdC84XvZo8g2CKST4fhu6NREl4
zaoA/aacqEeV44NZnwpyPLgKqzP0fuzNQ9kzTO9WmOgS3E7lxa8GrkzDBnA+IjniVH6o
nayvWIjvWIRadSIwC2MAgritxst0ODtJ9aUeWz1nVskqsCETmhpdAYNhY7IycoP+Lgpu
anPQ==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.50.79.196 with SMTP id l4mr17298129igx.48.1439839681683;
Mon, 17 Aug 2015 12:28:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.107.14.136 with HTTP; Mon, 17 Aug 2015 12:28:01 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAAO2FKF85Q-SoTEeVrYLEh-ZiEsGoMe1zzbDVdZy3FLbwU5yQg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <6EC9DDF352DC4838AE9B088AB372428A25E1F42A@DS04>
<CAAO2FKF85Q-SoTEeVrYLEh-ZiEsGoMe1zzbDVdZy3FLbwU5yQg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2015 19:28:01 +0000
Message-ID: <CAAS2fgRjug58b=j7-qs95xQf7y8zCfokwmaVL+rhcK8_8M0EaQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell@gmail.com>
To: Hector Chu <hectorchu@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,
DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, FREEMAIL_FROM,
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] Bitcoin XT Fork
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: Mon, 17 Aug 2015 19:28:03 -0000
On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 7:16 PM, Hector Chu via bitcoin-dev
<bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> On 15 August 2015 at 18:43, Satoshi Nakamoto via bitcoin-dev
> <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>>
>> I suspect we need a better incentive for users to run nodes instead of
>> relying solely on altruism.
>
>
> Is he talking about "full nodes" i.e. validating-only, or nodes in the sense
> of the original whitepaper (i.e. miners)? Because there is already plenty of
> incentive for running a node (i.e. the coinbase).
One can mine without running a node, unfortunately, thats where the
comments about pooled mining come from.
Also, this distionction between full nodes that "Validate" and
(presumably) SPV wallets that don't validate isn't consistent with the
design of Bitcoin.
> enter the mining game. A bit like making P2Pool the one and only pool
> allowed on the network.
Thats been suggested, though scalablity reasons make this hard: in the
P2Pool design there is a substantial tradeoff in variance reduction vs
communicatoin costs.
|
