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
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
|
Return-Path: <david.vorick@gmail.com>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 56086DD6
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Wed, 10 Feb 2016 06:14:15 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-vk0-f54.google.com (mail-vk0-f54.google.com
[209.85.213.54])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C4DB0106
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Wed, 10 Feb 2016 06:14:14 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-vk0-f54.google.com with SMTP id c3so6570391vkb.3
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Tue, 09 Feb 2016 22:14:14 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to
:cc:content-type;
bh=ig8JCtV7KOlIqeRxpbgn6WSQaCvLefo10mnFY07kAgU=;
b=vggM5efj4l5AevMOok6gVs0KzkLzF5Z4LpXh7Oh9a4F6ZWoimzooMNjI03/GC/YkuT
sBP3X3LBQmOXWz0GRAz+9QQT72XX++/EFK4QV4GcsLXJLZcneVPb27xkz2S4xibbNuN3
98VtClH9aV4GVvlhI7S2wc5nL8Zd9rIQNNFsa/FSSJKh7n0NF5QO5+vs8PVzHou8P++9
lBRWF+cotOsO7ohBJo2UQt/HZr50ISLmFOzO1v8fK6JcLO5J4/jJp9fXXs+kLwiIcp8E
5AxE5uH/ga2Pj8Zf8QrBmFmsd2ROllnq2IjdaANRqGl5bEi2w2aBGYhiM8ajdLw02tFD
tWgw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=1e100.net; s=20130820;
h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date
:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type;
bh=ig8JCtV7KOlIqeRxpbgn6WSQaCvLefo10mnFY07kAgU=;
b=YN8qjsZEIT3sQV40PzIVfypoqKQuFTmSzEuvGGrSxUxAX75wh+S2FhbmqbkqERHoUq
gkWKUI+0utWE+dA12TPodOYTEC0okzN/8uzmcb7dW9u7C6r2gZdEBk/L94TVeHElv6h2
UxXfoc29QXmpeMa9v13o4BorZ8JbydDWWSzTyHISOSNWsfa5ZWTrUxLQUIKbmmCSPLHc
hKWOTUXBoDGXq6u9UYIEVEa50H7zGIB9TBtFCZzQ7WxY6MpLPeaC5RbbZejvw+N+Pnqj
zwhmY6AyS6Zwp5tqrZWLx3zHqelz59n9LAnvfM71417zSVu7ESxclM3kZjHH/t6C/xZT
EBYw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AG10YOQjr+meQddOZ9zWtxMmI0c5Vrz/InDLd558Voe35WAvKVjbZRkjDvGBVOBw+2mIFhz//nqOZ6lXBinxfQ==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.31.168.135 with SMTP id r129mr29255997vke.7.1455084853991;
Tue, 09 Feb 2016 22:14:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.31.9.72 with HTTP; Tue, 9 Feb 2016 22:14:13 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CABsx9T2ewNQn7sxc675Qz6KNF-6DfZjYBY6Q2b6GTZ42X2piwQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CABsx9T1Bd0-aQg-9uRa4u3dGA5fKxaj8-mEkxVzX8mhdj4Gt2g@mail.gmail.com>
<201602060012.26728.luke@dashjr.org>
<CABm2gDrns0+eZdLyNk=tDNbnMsC1tT1MfEY93cJf1V_8TPjmLA@mail.gmail.com>
<CABsx9T2LuMZciXpMiY24+rPzhj1VT6j=HJ5STtnQmnfnA_XFUw@mail.gmail.com>
<CAHcfU-W9vubmuRFSb-zZgdKdCvXdO9ttZtu9T2tNxWTHcsGaTA@mail.gmail.com>
<CABsx9T2ewNQn7sxc675Qz6KNF-6DfZjYBY6Q2b6GTZ42X2piwQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2016 01:14:13 -0500
Message-ID: <CAFVRnyq7xADJz9nfH05izyfLvGuB_+z=AAXkFFrao6DqKsSTWQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: David Vorick <david.vorick@gmail.com>
To: Gavin Andresen <gavinandresen@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11414f94d720be052b645774
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,
DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW
autolearn=ham version=3.3.1
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
smtp1.linux-foundation.org
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP proposal: Increase block size limit to 2
megabytes
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Bitcoin Development Discussion <bitcoin-dev.lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/options/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2016 06:14:15 -0000
--001a11414f94d720be052b645774
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
> I love seeing data! I was considering 0.10 nodes as 'unmaintained'
because it has been a long time since the 0.11 release.
https://packages.gentoo.org/packages/net-p2p/bitcoin-qt
The Gentoo package manager still has 0.10.2 as the most recent stable
version. Getting a later version of the software on a gentoo setup requires
explicitly telling the package manger to grab a later version. I don't know
what percent of nodes are Gentoo 0.10.2, but I think it's evidence that
0.10 should not be considered 'unmaintained'. People who update their
software regularly will be running 0.10 on Gentoo.
> many of whom have privately told me they are willing and able to run an
extra node or three (or a hundred-and-eleven) once there is a final release.
I'm not clear on the utility of more nodes. Perhaps there is significant
concern about SPV nodes getting enough bandwidth or the network struggling
from the load? Generally though, I believe that when people talk about the
deteriorating full node count they are talking about a reduction in
decentralization. Full nodes are a weak indicator of how likely something
like a change in consensus rules is to get caught, or how many people you
would need to open communication with / extort in order to be able to force
rules upon the network. Having a person spin up multiple nodes doesn't
address either of those concerns, which in my understanding is what most
people care about. My personal concern is with the percentage of the
economy that is dependent on trusting the full nodes they are connected to,
and the overall integrity of that trust. (IE how likely is it that my SPV
node is going to lie to me about whether or not I've received a payment).
I will also point out that lots of people will promise things when they are
seeking political change. I don't know what percentage of promised nodes
would actually be spun up, but I'm guessing that it's going to be
significantly less than 100%. I have similar fears for companies that claim
they have tested their infrastructure for supporting 2MB blocks. Talk is
cheap.
--001a11414f94d720be052b645774
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<div dir=3D"ltr">>=C2=A0 I love seeing data!=C2=A0 I was considering 0.1=
0 nodes as 'unmaintained' because it has been a long time since the=
0.11 release.<br><br><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><a href=3D"https://package=
s.gentoo.org/packages/net-p2p/bitcoin-qt">https://packages.gentoo.org/packa=
ges/net-p2p/bitcoin-qt</a><br><br></div><div class=3D"gmail_extra">The Gent=
oo package manager still has 0.10.2 as the most recent stable version. Gett=
ing a later version of the software on a gentoo setup requires explicitly t=
elling the package manger to grab a later version. I don't know what pe=
rcent of nodes are Gentoo 0.10.2, but I think it's evidence that 0.10 s=
hould not be considered 'unmaintained'. People who update their sof=
tware regularly will be running 0.10 on Gentoo.<br><br>> many of whom h=
ave privately told me they are willing and able to=20
run an extra node or three (or a hundred-and-eleven) once there is a=20
final release.<div><br></div><div>I'm not clear on the utility of more =
nodes. Perhaps there is significant concern about SPV nodes getting enough =
bandwidth or the network struggling from the load? Generally though, I beli=
eve that when people talk about the deteriorating full node count they are =
talking about a reduction in decentralization. Full nodes are a weak indica=
tor of how likely something like a change in consensus rules is to get caug=
ht, or how many people you would need to open communication with / extort i=
n order to be able to force rules upon the network. Having a person spin up=
multiple nodes doesn't address either of those concerns, which in my u=
nderstanding is what most people care about. My personal concern is with th=
e percentage of the economy that is dependent on trusting the full nodes th=
ey are connected to, and the overall integrity of that trust. (IE how likel=
y is it that my SPV node is going to lie to me about whether or not I'v=
e received a payment).<br><br></div><div>I will also point out that lots of=
people will promise things when they are seeking political change. I don&#=
39;t know what percentage of promised nodes would actually be spun up, but =
I'm guessing that it's going to be significantly less than 100%. I =
have similar fears for companies that claim they have tested their infrastr=
ucture for supporting 2MB blocks. Talk is cheap.<br></div></div></div>
--001a11414f94d720be052b645774--
|
