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
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
|
Return-Path: <jimmyjack@gmail.com>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 47579BCE
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Wed, 15 Jul 2015 16:41:30 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-wg0-f48.google.com (mail-wg0-f48.google.com [74.125.82.48])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 51F4A140
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Wed, 15 Jul 2015 16:41:29 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by wgmn9 with SMTP id n9so38293411wgm.0
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Wed, 15 Jul 2015 09:41:28 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
h=content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc
:message-id:references:to;
bh=7pl4DrsGZQjG9jEjdQGfkVye04rNQKjXAZduzWUL0jE=;
b=SQQhpIY3pWSurbo8mP2k0ICJxF6D3EXsMdmFOusz7SFzyOhxSXBJpNbBwlS6bJIpa9
qwPbryu7fTkbs9ac0kyp9yeKnF4X/eTg3zj9HKocyTsTednbUo2wi7ydH5RmXqkvdpd0
hOwPKlRpBsXq0Q2b3L+KVf9hYSW313Ac7s2jZhXy5tVJJ1aL9x7HFSA2sTtiwbKBs/u+
5dtWwJ4Zvssy7ySV15JyDdzW8N/di/iJ28LJAcwbGBv4JvguzLQGi8Y7AP6jF8MINgG5
FoC4mzn+xrcdsh0o2vCYzTDmmu5VYEL6Qm+llJd5cMg19qHEwxKXT9vCvrbSutH7t9wt
3L0w==
X-Received: by 10.180.82.199 with SMTP id k7mr781221wiy.54.1436978488054;
Wed, 15 Jul 2015 09:41:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.0.0.210] ([194.46.128.92]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id
dl10sm8689211wjb.42.2015.07.15.09.41.25
(version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128);
Wed, 15 Jul 2015 09:41:27 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="Apple-Mail=_812369B3-EBA1-45A7-B3AF-E503A14C8FA6"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.0 \(3067\))
From: Me <jimmyjack@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAPg+sBgb6fGT524U4xi_GDrOio2uKMe4Z798699CknvtaBdcqw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2015 09:41:24 -0700
Message-Id: <A0CA5CBA-ADCC-4D6C-A419-4EA48ECDD143@gmail.com>
References: <24662b038abc45da7f3990e12a649b8a@airmail.cc>
<55A66FA9.4010506@thinlink.com>
<20150715151825.GB20029@savin.petertodd.org>
<CDB5FC27-F3F0-44F7-BBC6-670ACAE740D2@gmail.com>
<20150715155903.GC20029@savin.petertodd.org>
<E724A120-7F85-488B-81CD-B1CD8EB227E3@gmail.com>
<CAPg+sBgb6fGT524U4xi_GDrOio2uKMe4Z798699CknvtaBdcqw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Pieter Wuille <pieter.wuille@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3067)
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,
DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, FREEMAIL_FROM, HTML_MESSAGE,
MIME_QP_LONG_LINE,
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@lists.linuxfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Significant losses by double-spending unconfirmed
transactions
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, 15 Jul 2015 16:41:30 -0000
--Apple-Mail=_812369B3-EBA1-45A7-B3AF-E503A14C8FA6
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset=utf-8
> It's such a misconception that running many nodes somehow helps. It's =
much better that you run and control one or a few full nodes which you =
actually use to validate your transactions, than to run 1000s of nodes =
in third party datacenters. The latter only looks more decentralized.
I guess we sort of disagree here, perhaps my word =E2=80=9Cstrength=E2=80=9D=
was not the right word. Yes, running 6000 vs 7000 nodes makes no =
difference for the network strength, but (a) running 50 nodes vs 5000 =
does make a difference. I would love to see how the number of nodes drop =
if companies like blockcypher turn off their servers. Obviously it would =
not go 50. (b) running different clients (if blockcypher runs =
non-reference-bitcoinD client) makes the network less open wide-spread =
bugs
I feel we are really derailing the original topic btw :-)
> On Jul 15, 2015, at 9:11 AM, Pieter Wuille <pieter.wuille@gmail.com> =
wrote:
>=20
> On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 12:06 PM, Me via bitcoin-dev =
<bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org =
<mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>> wrote:
> Have you talk to them? If not, how can you be sure they don=E2=80=99t =
run large number of standard nodes and actually make the network =
stronger? Personally I never bring claims like this if I just assume. A =
lot of people in the community really trust you, do you realize you =
potentially hurt them for no reason?
>=20
> Running normal full nodes only provides extra service to nodes =
synchronizing and lightweight clients. It does not "make the network =
stronger" in the sense that it does not reduce the trust the =
participants need to have in each other.
>=20
> It's such a misconception that running many nodes somehow helps. It's =
much better that you run and control one or a few full nodes which you =
actually use to validate your transactions, than to run 1000s of nodes =
in third party datacenters. The latter only looks more decentralized.
>=20
> --=20
> Pieter
>=20
--Apple-Mail=_812369B3-EBA1-45A7-B3AF-E503A14C8FA6
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/html;
charset=utf-8
<html><head><meta http-equiv=3D"Content-Type" content=3D"text/html =
charset=3Dutf-8"></head><body style=3D"word-wrap: break-word; =
-webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;" =
class=3D""><div class=3D""><blockquote type=3D"cite" class=3D""><div =
dir=3D"ltr" class=3D""><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><div =
class=3D"gmail_quote"><div class=3D"">It's such a misconception that =
running many nodes somehow helps. It's much better that you run and =
control one or a few full nodes which you actually use to validate your =
transactions, than to run 1000s of nodes in third party datacenters. The =
latter only looks more =
decentralized.</div></div></div></div></blockquote></div><div =
class=3D""><br class=3D""></div><div class=3D"">I guess we sort of =
disagree here, perhaps my word =E2=80=9Cstrength=E2=80=9D was not the =
right word. Yes, running 6000 vs 7000 nodes makes no difference for the =
network strength, but (a) running 50 nodes vs 5000 does make a =
difference. I would love to see how the number of nodes drop if =
companies like blockcypher turn off their servers. Obviously it would =
not go 50. (b) running different clients (if blockcypher runs =
non-reference-bitcoinD client) makes the network less open wide-spread =
bugs</div><div class=3D""><br class=3D""></div><div class=3D""><br =
class=3D""></div><div class=3D"">I feel we are really derailing the =
original topic btw :-)</div><div class=3D""><br =
class=3D""></div><div class=3D""><br class=3D""></div><div class=3D""><br =
class=3D""></div><div class=3D""><br class=3D""></div><br =
class=3D""><div><blockquote type=3D"cite" class=3D""><div class=3D"">On =
Jul 15, 2015, at 9:11 AM, Pieter Wuille <<a =
href=3D"mailto:pieter.wuille@gmail.com" =
class=3D"">pieter.wuille@gmail.com</a>> wrote:</div><br =
class=3D"Apple-interchange-newline"><div class=3D""><div dir=3D"ltr" =
class=3D"">On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 12:06 PM, Me via bitcoin-dev <span =
dir=3D"ltr" class=3D""><<a =
href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" target=3D"_blank" =
class=3D"">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a>></span> =
wrote:<br class=3D""><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><div =
class=3D"gmail_quote"><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 =
0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Have you talk to =
them? If not, how can you be sure they don=E2=80=99t run large number of =
standard nodes and actually make the network stronger? Personally I =
never bring claims like this if I just assume. A lot of people in the =
community really trust you, do you realize you potentially hurt them for =
no reason?<br class=3D""></blockquote><div class=3D""><br =
class=3D""></div><div class=3D"">Running normal full nodes only provides =
extra service to nodes synchronizing and lightweight clients. It does =
not "make the network stronger" in the sense that it does not reduce the =
trust the participants need to have in each other.<br class=3D""><br =
class=3D""></div><div class=3D"">It's such a misconception that running =
many nodes somehow helps. It's much better that you run and control one =
or a few full nodes which you actually use to validate your =
transactions, than to run 1000s of nodes in third party datacenters. The =
latter only looks more decentralized.<br class=3D""><br =
class=3D""></div><div class=3D"">-- <br class=3D""></div><div =
class=3D"">Pieter<br class=3D""><br class=3D""></div></div></div></div>
</div></blockquote></div><br class=3D""></body></html>=
--Apple-Mail=_812369B3-EBA1-45A7-B3AF-E503A14C8FA6--
|
