Peter, it’s a work in evolution, it’s not complete yet. It’s still missing a bunch of stuff - please feel free to contribute. > On Jul 24, 2015, at 1:28 PM, Eric Lombrozo wrote: > >> >> On Jul 24, 2015, at 10:40 AM, Peter Todd via bitcoin-dev wrote: >> >> On Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 07:09:13AM -0700, Adam Back via bitcoin-dev wrote: >>> (Claim of large bitcoin ecosystem companies without full nodes) this >>> says to me rather we have a need for education: I run a full node >>> myself (intermittently), just for my puny collection of bitcoins. If >>> I ran a business with custody of client funds I'd wake up in a cold >>> sweat at night about the security and integrity of the companies full >>> nodes, and reconciliation of client funds against them. >>> >>> However I'm not sure the claim is accurate ($30m funding and no full >>> node) but to take the hypothetical that this pattern exists, security >>> people and architects at such companies must insist on the company >>> running their own full node to depend on and cross check from >>> otherwise they would be needlessly putting their client's funds at >>> risk. >> >> FWIW, blockchain.info is obviously *not* running a full node as their >> wallet was accepting invalid confirmations on transactions caused by the >> recent BIP66 related fork; blockchain.info has $30m in funding. >> >> Coinbase also was not running a full node not all that long ago, instead >> running a custom Ruby implementation that caused their service to go >> down whenever it forked. (and would have also accepted invalid >> confirmations) I believe right now they're running that implementation >> behind a full node however. >> >>> The crypto currency security standards document probably covers >>> requirement for fullnode somewhere >>> https://cryptoconsortium.github.io/CCSS/ - we need some kind of basic >>> minimum bar standard for companies to aim for and this seems like a >>> reasonable start! >> >> Actually I've been trying to get the CCSS standard to cover full nodes, >> and have been getting push-back: >> >> https://github.com/CryptoConsortium/CCSS/issues/15 >> >> tl;dr: Running a full node is *not* required by the standard right now >> at any certification level. >> >> This is of course completely ridiculous... But I haven't had much much >> time to put into getting that changed so maybe we just need some better >> explanations to the others maintaining the standard. That said, if the >> standard stays that way, obviously I'm going to have to ask to have my >> name taken off it. > > For the record, there’s pretty much unanimous agreement that running a full node should be a requirement at the higher levels of certification (if not the lower ones as well). I’m not sure exactly what pushback you’re referring to. > > >>> In terms of a constructive discussion, I think it's interesting to >>> talk about the root cause and solutions: decentralisation (more >>> economically dependent full nodes, lower miner policy centralisation), >>> more layer 2 work. People interested in scaling, if they havent, >>> should go read the lightning paper, look at the github and participate >>> in protocol or code work. I think realistically we can have this >>> running inside of a year. That significantly changes the dynamic. >>> Similarly a significant part of mining centralisation is artificial >>> and work is underway that will improve that. >> >> I would point out that lack of understanding of how Bitcoin works, as >> well as a lack of understanding of security engineering in general, is >> probably a significant contributor to these problems. Furthermore >> Bitcoin and cryptocurrencies in general are still small enough that many >> forseeable low probability but high impact events haven't happened, >> making it difficult to explain to non-technical stakeholders why they >> should be listening to experts rather than charlatans and fools. >> >> After a few major centralization related failures have occured, we'll >> have an easier job here. Unfortunately there's also a good chance we >> only get one shot at this due to how easy it is to kill PoW systems at >> birth... >> >> -- >> 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org >> 000000000000000014438a428adfcf4d113a09b87e4a552a1608269ff137ef2d >> _______________________________________________ >> bitcoin-dev mailing list >> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org >> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev