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
|
Received: from sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.193]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-1.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <mh.in.england@gmail.com>) id 1YzjzG-0007GN-TG
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Tue, 02 Jun 2015 11:04:02 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
designates 209.85.212.181 as permitted sender)
client-ip=209.85.212.181; envelope-from=mh.in.england@gmail.com;
helo=mail-wi0-f181.google.com;
Received: from mail-wi0-f181.google.com ([209.85.212.181])
by sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1YzjzF-0003pi-NO
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Tue, 02 Jun 2015 11:04:02 +0000
Received: by wifw1 with SMTP id w1so139836506wif.0
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Tue, 02 Jun 2015 04:03:55 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.180.206.229 with SMTP id lr5mr30216169wic.86.1433243035636;
Tue, 02 Jun 2015 04:03:55 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: mh.in.england@gmail.com
Received: by 10.194.16.40 with HTTP; Tue, 2 Jun 2015 04:03:55 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <556CF426.3030204@voskuil.org>
References: <CAFnMCfd8N_2nvspXF+Tro_SsofUUrMy4_QG9tRbPm1pUWtUCXQ@mail.gmail.com>
<CANEZrP1HttM5rRqTchMrsbhfTbASHm3j0q=vjDaTjeYQHHBr9Q@mail.gmail.com>
<556CF426.3030204@voskuil.org>
Date: Tue, 2 Jun 2015 13:03:55 +0200
X-Google-Sender-Auth: 6NQiQnOOr2MqLAmGFmUuizEN2DI
Message-ID: <CANEZrP1TgAxd70UnnTac8-h2huUxCJD3VsqxWdgv2mpwbU_mkQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net>
To: Eric Voskuil <eric@voskuil.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c38a22041c49051786e659
X-Spam-Score: -0.5 (/)
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
(mh.in.england[at]gmail.com)
-0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record
1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message
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: 1YzjzF-0003pi-NO
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>,
=?UTF-8?B?SsOpcsO0bWUgTGVnb3VwaWw=?= <jjlegoupil@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Proposed alternatives to the 20MB step
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: Tue, 02 Jun 2015 11:04:03 -0000
--001a11c38a22041c49051786e659
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
> 1,000 *people* in control vs. 10 is two orders of
magnitude more decentralized.
Yet Bitcoin has got worse by all these metrics: there was a time before
mining pools when there were ~thousands of people mining with their local
CPUs and GPUs. Now the number of full nodes that matter for block selection
number in the dozens, and all the other miners just follow their blocks
blindly.
If you really believe that decentralisation is, itself, the end, then why
not go use an "ASIC resistant" alt coin with no SPV or web wallets which
resembles Bitcoin at the end of 2009? That'd be a whole lot more
decentralised than what you have now.
The *percentage* of the community that mines is totally irrelevant, it's
> the absolute number of (independent) people that matters.
>
So usage does matter, then? You'd rather have a coin that has power
concentrated in a far smaller elite, proportionally, but has overall more
usage? If there are say, 5000 full nodes today, and in ten years there are
6000, and they all run in vast datacenters and are owned by large
companies, you'll feel like Bitcoin is more decentralised than ever?
(n.b. I do not think this situation will ever happen, it's just an example).
That's not the vibe I'm getting from most people on this list. What I'm
seeing is complaints about how in the good old days back when Core was the
only wallet and ASICs hadn't been made, there were lots of nodes and lots
of people mining solo and since then it's all been downhill and woe is us
... and let's throw on the brakes in case it gets worse.
Not for the first time, these discussions remind me very strongly of the
old desktop Linux/free software debates.
--001a11c38a22041c49051786e659
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<div dir=3D"ltr"><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><blo=
ckquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left=
-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;paddi=
ng-left:1ex">=C2=A01,000 *people* in control vs. 10 is two orders of</block=
quote><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;b=
order-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:s=
olid;padding-left:1ex">
magnitude more decentralized. </blockquote><div><br></div><div>Yet Bitcoin =
has got worse by all these metrics: there was a time before mining pools wh=
en there were ~thousands of people mining with their local CPUs and GPUs. N=
ow the number of full nodes that matter for block selection number in the d=
ozens, and all the other miners just follow their blocks blindly.</div><div=
><br></div><div><div>If you really believe that decentralisation is, itself=
, the end, then why not go use an "ASIC resistant" alt coin with =
no SPV or web wallets which resembles Bitcoin at the end of 2009? That'=
d be a whole lot more decentralised than what you have now.<br></div></div>=
<div><br></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0p=
x 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-lef=
t-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">The *percentage* of the community that=C2=
=A0mines is totally irrelevant, it's the absolute number of (independen=
t)=C2=A0people that matters.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>So usage d=
oes matter, then? You'd rather have a coin that has power concentrated =
in a far smaller elite, proportionally, but has overall more usage? If ther=
e are say, 5000 full nodes today, and in ten years there are 6000, and they=
all run in vast datacenters and are owned by large companies, you'll f=
eel like Bitcoin is more decentralised than ever? =C2=A0 (n.b. I do not thi=
nk this situation will ever happen, it's just an example).</div><div><b=
r></div><div>That's not the vibe I'm getting from most people on th=
is list. What I'm seeing is complaints about how in the good old days b=
ack when Core was the only wallet and ASICs hadn't been made, =C2=A0the=
re were lots of nodes and lots of people mining solo and since then it'=
s all been downhill and woe is us ... and let's throw on the brakes in =
case it gets worse.</div><div><br></div><div>Not for the first time, these =
discussions remind me very strongly of the old desktop Linux/free software =
debates.</div></div></div></div>
--001a11c38a22041c49051786e659--
|
