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
|
Received: from sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.193]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-2.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <justusranvier@riseup.net>) id 1Z4jQO-0000xT-Nl
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Tue, 16 Jun 2015 05:28:40 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of riseup.net
designates 198.252.153.129 as permitted sender)
client-ip=198.252.153.129;
envelope-from=justusranvier@riseup.net; helo=mx1.riseup.net;
Received: from mx1.riseup.net ([198.252.153.129])
by sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256)
(Exim 4.76) id 1Z4jQN-0007fR-9B
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Tue, 16 Jun 2015 05:28:40 +0000
Received: from berryeater.riseup.net (berryeater-pn.riseup.net [10.0.1.120])
(using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
(Client CN "*.riseup.net",
Issuer "COMODO RSA Domain Validation Secure Server CA" (verified OK))
by mx1.riseup.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2ED2242C74;
Tue, 16 Jun 2015 05:28:32 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1])
(Authenticated sender: justusranvier) with ESMTPSA id C1216401FC
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8;
format=flowed
Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2015 05:28:32 +0000
From: justusranvier@riseup.net
To: Kevin Greene <kgreenek@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAEY8wq4SOddGUJNqkrdhhfQEn4tXehCWiifk-P=PYUdfFcXFTQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CALqxMTHrnSS9MGgKO-5+=fVhiOOvk12Recs11S0PcSUxQT1wdQ@mail.gmail.com>
<CA+c4Zoy6U9RXH3Qw15sXXnaeYL-9PFbnTp=VLAJsvpC_zoAK_A@mail.gmail.com>
<CAEY8wq41ftFA1ObyUWiRGOgebwqDCAw_j+hU6_wfcXv5GSZaJw@mail.gmail.com>
<201506160341.10994.luke@dashjr.org>
<CAEY8wq4SOddGUJNqkrdhhfQEn4tXehCWiifk-P=PYUdfFcXFTQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <a9e2e033c786fb7f99bcf7505ad45f21@riseup.net>
X-Sender: justusranvier@riseup.net
User-Agent: Riseup mail
X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.98.7 at mx1
X-Virus-Status: Clean
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Spam-Score: -2.0 (--)
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 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/,
no trust [198.252.153.129 listed in list.dnswl.org]
-0.0 SPF_HELO_PASS SPF: HELO matches SPF record
-0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record
-0.6 RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay
domain
0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature,
not necessarily valid
0.0 T_DKIM_INVALID DKIM-Signature header exists but is not valid
0.0 UNPARSEABLE_RELAY Informational: message has unparseable relay
lines
X-Headers-End: 1Z4jQN-0007fR-9B
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
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: <bitcoin-development.lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_name=bitcoin-development>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2015 05:28:40 -0000
On 2015-06-16 03:49, Kevin Greene wrote:
> =E2=80=8BHah, fair enough, there is no such thing as the "right" way to=
do
> 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=20
> SPV is
> the best way that exists for mobile phones to participate in the=20
> network in
> a decentralized way. This proposal makes the user experience for mobile
> wallets a little more confusing and annoying.
Suppose a billion mobile phones wanted to run SPV wallets tomorrow. Who=20
would provide the nodes they would need connect to? The decentralization=20
fairy?
There's absolutely no reason that paying for connectivity would be any=20
more confusing or annoying than transaction fees are.
If some full nodes in the network started offering paid connection=20
slots, that would just mean that users who checked the "pay subscription=20
fee" box in their wallet configuration would have an easier time=20
connecting than the users who did't, just like how your transaction=20
might eventually get mined without a fee but paying one makes it faster=20
and more probable.
|
