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
|
Received: from sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.191]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-2.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <gmaxwell@gmail.com>) id 1WXxZZ-0003ou-Sj
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Wed, 09 Apr 2014 18:50:09 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
designates 209.85.215.43 as permitted sender)
client-ip=209.85.215.43; envelope-from=gmaxwell@gmail.com;
helo=mail-la0-f43.google.com;
Received: from mail-la0-f43.google.com ([209.85.215.43])
by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1WXxZY-0004BG-2N
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Wed, 09 Apr 2014 18:50:09 +0000
Received: by mail-la0-f43.google.com with SMTP id e16so1495726lan.16
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Wed, 09 Apr 2014 11:50:01 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.152.203.129 with SMTP id kq1mr8692433lac.6.1397069401343;
Wed, 09 Apr 2014 11:50:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.112.89.68 with HTTP; Wed, 9 Apr 2014 11:50:01 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <534592E2.7040800@gmail.com>
References: <CA+s+GJCn9U2kmyMH6w3o+m99NCfO0ws=SccvGBYJv07WVuF=eA@mail.gmail.com>
<CAADm4BCEFCiOpNzUThPPHUamP2256izU8pwD3nerLCxks0wENA@mail.gmail.com>
<CAAS2fgTx40XSLhiygnJMrSbOC=iJ2YMVLNK7-AMt3ifvAHDZUA@mail.gmail.com>
<E9BAD633-3B6A-4A2C-AA06-DB591973DF66@bitsofproof.com>
<53456B99.9010207@monetize.io>
<B2FEC170-7214-4E46-8830-153995870B62@bitsofproof.com>
<00b77560-d7ed-4ed4-a4e5-eb1f00467a06@email.android.com>
<0509477C-89F9-47C7-8820-29ACAD4A4A8E@bitsofproof.com>
<CANEZrP2Q=TG+jejEVFFh5FhjzDDkySHNSTfwtKueLcHu=pB6Kw@mail.gmail.com>
<CA+s+GJBRvDFgktTgW2sCvAVahrjxcGqfgHw0BVNPvwUupotVrg@mail.gmail.com>
<534592E2.7040800@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 9 Apr 2014 11:50:01 -0700
Message-ID: <CAAS2fgS3q6N9go-NSKdjLwgU_5bFwa8YE88DcjNYHQTwzPCn3Q@mail.gmail.com>
From: Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell@gmail.com>
To: Justus Ranvier <justusranvier@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
X-Spam-Score: -1.6 (-)
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
(gmaxwell[at]gmail.com)
-0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record
-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: 1WXxZY-0004BG-2N
Cc: Bitcoin Development <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Bitcoind-in-background mode for SPV
wallets
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: Wed, 09 Apr 2014 18:50:10 -0000
On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 11:35 AM, Justus Ranvier <justusranvier@gmail.com> wrote:
> If the security of the network depends on a broken incentive model,
> then fix the design of the network so that economics works for you
> instead of against you.
Who says anything about a broken incentive model. You've made past
claims about resource requirements that I think made no sense and then
failed to defend them when they were challenge.
With suitable software improvements running a full node could be done
in as little as a few gigabytes in disk space (e.g. cost 25-50 cents),
and as 50-100kbit/sec bandwidth in and out ongoing, and a moderate
amount of ram. Power costs are already just a few cents per month. By
far the greatest cost is the figuring out and setting up part, which
bundling could fix. The exact resources could be tunable to what the
users are willing and able to contribute.
If improved marginal security and privacy in addition to supporting
the network is not enough incentive to overcome costs like these then
Bitcoin is already doomed. I think that fundamental costs aren't an
issue at all, just implementation warts and education are.
Part of asking the question is feeling out which improvements need to
happen first, and what the prospects of getting the bundling going
once those improvements are made.
|
