MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <3197878.6zmtLAPm4L@coldstorage>
References: <CAPg+sBj-wA1DMrwkQRWnzQoB5NR-q=2-5=WDAAUYfSpXRZSTqw@mail.gmail.com>
	<1542978.eROxFinZd4@coldstorage>
	<CAPg+sBiCH12i6-WEx++zTbovn=2FZqKAKxfnGkruU_Ah-y-_4g@mail.gmail.com>
	<3197878.6zmtLAPm4L@coldstorage>
Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2015 19:09:30 +0200
Message-ID: <CAPg+sBgWrOUfD2LKgL-ziCkAgzGVU_W0_fK4w7wRPgjQ0L3JVg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Pieter Wuille <pieter.wuille@gmail.com>
To: Thomas Zander <thomas@thomaszander.se>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113f8f14f80471051cbbb2c8
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Fwd: Block size following technological growth
Precedence: list

--001a113f8f14f80471051cbbb2c8
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 7:00 PM, Thomas Zander via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:

> > If the incentives for running a node don't weight up against the
> > cost/difficulty using a full node yourself for a majority of people in
> the
> > ecosystem, I would argue that there is a problem. As Bitcoin's
> fundamental
> > improvement over other systems is the lack of need for trust, I believe
> > that with increased adoption should also come an increased (in absolute
> > terms) incentive for people to use a full node. I'm seeing the opposite
> > trend, and that is worrying IMHO.
>
> And you do the same thing again; you dismiss the need factor.
>

Of course there is a need. It's the primary mechanism that keeps Bitcoin
secure and immune from malicious influence.

Of course not everyone needs to run a node. But that leaves the
responsibility on us - the community - to help the situation by not making
it too hard to run a node. And I see the block size as the primary way
through which we do that.

If the impact of the system goes us, so should the - joint - incentives to
keep it secure. And I think we're (slowly) failing at that.

-- 
Pieter

--001a113f8f14f80471051cbbb2c8
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr">On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 7:00 PM, Thomas Zander via bitcoin-=
dev <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundati=
on.org" target=3D"_blank">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a>&gt;</sp=
an> wrote:<br><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><blockq=
uote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc =
solid;padding-left:1ex"><span class=3D"">&gt; If the incentives for running=
 a node don&#39;t weight up against the<br>
&gt; cost/difficulty using a full node yourself for a majority of people in=
 the<br>
&gt; ecosystem, I would argue that there is a problem. As Bitcoin&#39;s fun=
damental<br>
&gt; improvement over other systems is the lack of need for trust, I believ=
e<br>
&gt; that with increased adoption should also come an increased (in absolut=
e<br>
&gt; terms) incentive for people to use a full node. I&#39;m seeing the opp=
osite<br>
&gt; trend, and that is worrying IMHO.<br>
<br>
</span>And you do the same thing again; you dismiss the need factor.<br></b=
lockquote><div><br></div><div>Of course there is a need. It&#39;s the prima=
ry mechanism that keeps Bitcoin secure and immune from malicious influence.=
<br><br></div><div>Of course not everyone needs to run a node. But that lea=
ves the responsibility on us - the community - to help the situation by not=
 making it too hard to run a node. And I see the block size as the primary =
way through which we do that.<br><br></div><div>If the impact of the system=
 goes us, so should the - joint - incentives to keep it secure. And I think=
 we&#39;re (slowly) failing at that.<br></div><div><br>-- <br></div><div>Pi=
eter<br><br></div></div></div></div>

--001a113f8f14f80471051cbbb2c8--