Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
	designates 209.85.215.45 as permitted sender)
	client-ip=209.85.215.45; envelope-from=gmaxwell@gmail.com;
	helo=mail-la0-f45.google.com; 
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <5342D9FA.8080102@monetize.io>
References: <CANEZrP2rgiQHpekEpFviJ22QsiV+s-F2pqosaZOA5WrRtJx5pg@mail.gmail.com>
	<5342C833.5030906@gmail.com>
	<CAAS2fgTqBfEPXh2dfcL_ke6c0wfXw4qUM1rAYMkAHcAM6mYH+g@mail.gmail.com>
	<5342D1DB.8060203@monetize.io>
	<CAAS2fgRu-0C_ozaN0qSc9SvF2TpZ56NwceLCrfQjikuQgc85tQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<5342D9FA.8080102@monetize.io>
Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2014 10:16:03 -0700
Message-ID: <CAAS2fgT5xfYzup01+USkFmFWi=FtDfbPY1HPpTLyQ+6_ejGOZA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell@gmail.com>
To: Mark Friedenbach <mark@monetize.io>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: Bitcoin Development <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Why are we bleeding nodes?
Precedence: list

On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 10:01 AM, Mark Friedenbach <mark@monetize.io> wrote:
> On 04/07/2014 09:57 AM, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
>> That is an implementation issue=E2=80=94 mostly one that arises as an in=
direct
>> consequence of not having headers first and the parallel fetch, not a
>> requirements issue.
>
> Oh, absolutely. But the question "why are people not running full
> nodes?" has to do with the current implementation, not abstract
> capabilities of a future version of the bitcoind code base.

The distinction is very important because it's a matter of things we
can and should fix vs things that cannot be fixed except by changing
goals/incentives!  Opposite approaches to handling them.

When I read "resource requirements of a full node are moving beyond" I
didn't extract from that that "there are implementation issues that
need to be improved to make it work better for low resource users" due
to the word "requirements".