Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 61FE7BC0 for ; Thu, 30 Mar 2017 11:24:52 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-wr0-f174.google.com (mail-wr0-f174.google.com [209.85.128.174]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6B81F131 for ; Thu, 30 Mar 2017 11:24:51 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-wr0-f174.google.com with SMTP id w11so54998978wrc.3 for ; Thu, 30 Mar 2017 04:24:51 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version :in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=0BXM5YeU1Re80VBKGMjAsuwxfUzBGADf/Fc+5g64X5c=; b=eFIaDyU/caBTu566V6g0Q68OQNbaH383FV9HVO6seN4onbN0UcY5czueWOE5mS3GZO IPAVGfdn0KQ6+whjN6tq6A6MTOXZh8KddflGJNOlAOMkXfS2GCv6SCvhlqeEhXt0BTaA qfAk/T5XM4u5zaj0hq7NJfIUeSFQ3WSh1KM0Xf/RZoqwbcqENJ3hW8Ovw3gS5TGQF9P2 9qMnIwGVmCq+6b3zLDBG2twvONMziWm0jDqZWRofbHLah9DieGFDGDdcsEqw1lq4CE6y PVGlQOQOhnZLVxIRxvaHumsSNv8ztG9xy6KCtK2QKILioVxSKl6IJVECuPcHkK8xJP5+ PLxQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=0BXM5YeU1Re80VBKGMjAsuwxfUzBGADf/Fc+5g64X5c=; b=DARy4+sXxmvqDlXXqsn04VuRDA3tzeK2Lde//7aIqIddkQb3a/iw+PvUD1cSF+tPbI cNWD1BlerOm3Ul5UvjrSe+Xouz6yK2m29RomFfuiYVvvvghLXvN8uWd2p8BLDSnHcIMD IS+lvPRYX3VxY+XGvQ87oN+l+Xk1Zjs/nctCSPbvKRuz1jfqrmxMuMSWu2etHD283o94 KeKjVX250EDOtx+qdusHFga9Lp6Rne7AwTTXqXl+WCI9OkDMpjcCzkuqEg0j+fSShbfY gNP/VX3YyxUp7sO7ubjcaXOYiyFGAIDQPuJoJeoVp5qqf155S3q0MCKBrb8mmi2o/aud CtfA== X-Gm-Message-State: AFeK/H3FurM7YKZN7X+B21P4rseXS5OKrAdSOaeMvDvIk1Vs2IW4gKzx/W0Ir3c664lGkw== X-Received: by 10.223.162.212 with SMTP id t20mr4892090wra.122.1490873089805; Thu, 30 Mar 2017 04:24:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.10] (ANice-654-1-52-124.w83-201.abo.wanadoo.fr. [83.201.223.124]) by smtp.googlemail.com with ESMTPSA id 68sm1922651wme.7.2017.03.30.04.24.48 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 30 Mar 2017 04:24:49 -0700 (PDT) To: Tom Zander , Bitcoin Protocol Discussion References: <42619430.6XQoorDgjR@strawberry> From: Aymeric Vitte Message-ID: Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2017 13:24:53 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.8.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <42619430.6XQoorDgjR@strawberry> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.5 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, FREEMAIL_FROM, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE, RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM autolearn=no version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org 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 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2017 11:24:52 -0000 Except if people have some incentive to do it, simple example: I have some servers, they are doing some work but are not so busy finally, I can decide to run some nodes, this does not cost me more (and less for the planet than setting up new servers) and I get some rewards (as an illustration of this my servers are mining zcash and running zcash nodes, this is of course absolutely not profitable but since this does not disturb what the servers are primarly intended for and I get some small zecs with no additionnal costs, why not doing it?) Of course we can then consider that people doing this are finally using the network... Le 30/03/2017 à 12:34, Tom Zander via bitcoin-dev a écrit : > On Wednesday, 29 March 2017 21:50:48 CEST Raystonn . via bitcoin-dev wrote: >> Low node costs are a good goal for nodes that handle transactions the node >> operator can afford. Nobody is going to run a node for a network they do >> not use for their own transactions. If transactions have fees that >> prohibit use for most economic activity, that means node count will drop >> until nodes are generally run by those who settle large amounts. That is >> very centralizing. >> >> Raystonn > The idea that people won’t run a node for a network they don’t use for their > own transactions is a very good observation and a good reason to get on- > chain scaling happening well before lightning hits. > -- Zcash wallets made simple: https://github.com/Ayms/zcash-wallets Bitcoin wallets made simple: https://github.com/Ayms/bitcoin-wallets Get the torrent dynamic blocklist: http://peersm.com/getblocklist Check the 10 M passwords list: http://peersm.com/findmyass Anti-spies and private torrents, dynamic blocklist: http://torrent-live.org Peersm : http://www.peersm.com torrent-live: https://github.com/Ayms/torrent-live node-Tor : https://www.github.com/Ayms/node-Tor GitHub : https://www.github.com/Ayms