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 ) id 1Z4iEX-0002CC-BS for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Tue, 16 Jun 2015 04:12:21 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com designates 209.85.220.169 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.220.169; envelope-from=voisine@gmail.com; helo=mail-qk0-f169.google.com; Received: from mail-qk0-f169.google.com ([209.85.220.169]) by sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1Z4iEW-00060v-83 for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Tue, 16 Jun 2015 04:12:21 +0000 Received: by qkfe185 with SMTP id e185so2863889qkf.3 for ; Mon, 15 Jun 2015 21:12:14 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.140.238.22 with SMTP id j22mr41857497qhc.98.1434427934859; Mon, 15 Jun 2015 21:12:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.140.91.37 with HTTP; Mon, 15 Jun 2015 21:12:14 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <201506160341.10994.luke@dashjr.org> Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2015 21:12:14 -0700 Message-ID: From: Aaron Voisine To: Kevin Greene Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113594ee8366fb05189ac7f6 X-Spam-Score: -0.6 (/) 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 (voisine[at]gmail.com) -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record 1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message -0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from author's domain 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: 1Z4iEW-00060v-83 Cc: Bitcoin Dev Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] The Bitcoin Node Market X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2015 04:12:21 -0000 --001a113594ee8366fb05189ac7f6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable We're planning to run our own full nodes to take load off the volunteer network as breadwallet use increases, and also contribute any SPV serving performance optimizations we can make to bitcoin-core. Just want to let people know we share these concerns and have plans to mitigate any negative impact on the network. Aaron Voisine co-founder and CEO breadwallet.com On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 8:49 PM, Kevin Greene wrote: > > > On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 8:41 PM, Luke Dashjr wrote: > >> On Tuesday, June 16, 2015 3:30:44 AM Kevin Greene wrote: >> > Would SPV wallets have to pay to connect to the network too? From the >> > user's perspective, it would be somewhat upsetting (and confusing) to >> see >> > your balance slowly draining every time you open your wallet app. It >> would >> > also tie up outputs every time you open up your wallet. You may go to >> pay >> > for something in a coffee shop, only to find that you can't spend your >> > bitcoin because the wallet had to create a transaction to pay to sync >> with >> > the network. >> > >> > Also, users of centralized wallet services like Coinbase would not hav= e >> to >> > pay that fee; but users of native wallets like breadwallet would have = no >> > such option. This incentivizes users to use centralized wallets. >> > >> > So this is kind of imposing a worse user experience on users who want = to >> > use bitcoin the "right" way. That doesn't seem like a good thing to me >> :/ >> >> SPV isn't the "right" way either ;) >> > > =E2=80=8BHah, fair enough, there is no such thing as the "right" way to d= o > anything. But I still think punishing users who use SPV wallets is =E2=80= =8Ba > less-than-ideal way to incentive people to run full nodes. Right now SPV = is > the best way that exists for mobile phones to participate in the network = in > a decentralized way. This proposal makes the user experience for mobile > wallets a little more confusing and annoying. > > >> >> If you're running a full node (the real "right way"), you should be able >> to >> earn more bitcoins than you pay out. >> >> Luke >> > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------= ----- > > _______________________________________________ > Bitcoin-development mailing list > Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development > > --001a113594ee8366fb05189ac7f6 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
We're planning to run our own full nodes to take load = off the volunteer network as breadwallet use increases, and also contribute= any SPV serving performance optimizations we can make to bitcoin-core. Jus= t want to let people know we share these concerns and have plans to mitigat= e any negative impact on the network.


Aaron Voisine
co-founder and CEO
breadwallet.com

On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 8:49 PM, Kevin Green= e <kgreenek@gmail.com> wrote:
=

On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 8:41 PM, Luke Dashjr &l= t;luke@dashjr.org&= gt; wrote:
On Tuesday, June = 16, 2015 3:30:44 AM Kevin Greene wrote:
> Would SPV wallets have to pay to connect to the network too? From the<= br> > user's perspective, it would be somewhat upsetting (and confusing)= to see
> your balance slowly draining every time you open your wallet app. It w= ould
> also tie up outputs every time you open up your wallet. You may go to = pay
> for something in a coffee shop, only to find that you can't spend = your
> bitcoin because the wallet had to create a transaction to pay to sync = with
> the network.
>
> Also, users of centralized wallet services like Coinbase would not hav= e to
> pay that fee; but users of native wallets like breadwallet would have = no
> such option. This incentivizes users to use centralized wallets.
>
> So this is kind of imposing a worse user experience on users who want = to
> use bitcoin the "right" way. That doesn't seem like a go= od thing to me :/

SPV isn't the "right" way either ;)

=E2=80=8BHah, fair enough, there is no such thing as the "r= ight" way to do anything. But I still think punishing users who use SP= V wallets is =E2=80=8Ba less-than-ideal way to incentive people to run full= nodes. Right now SPV is the best way that exists for mobile phones to part= icipate in the network in a decentralized way. This proposal makes the user= experience for mobile wallets a little more confusing and annoying.
<= /div>
=C2=A0

If you're running a full node (the real "right way"), you sho= uld be able to
earn more bitcoins than you pay out.

Luke


-----------------------------------------------------------------------= -------

_______________________________________________
Bitcoin-development mailing list
Bitcoin-develo= pment@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/= listinfo/bitcoin-development


--001a113594ee8366fb05189ac7f6--