From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9E6E1486 for ; Fri, 7 Aug 2015 16:12:18 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: delayed 00:06:03 by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from manxnetsf05.manx.net (outbound.manx.net [213.137.31.12]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B347C89 for ; Fri, 7 Aug 2015 16:12:17 +0000 (UTC) Received: from 195.10.99.101 (EHLO coldstorage.localnet) ([195.10.99.101]) by manxnetsf05.manx.net (MOS 4.4.5a-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id EFT72891; Fri, 07 Aug 2015 17:06:11 +0100 (BST) From: Thomas Zander To: Bitcoin Dev Date: Fri, 07 Aug 2015 18:06:09 +0200 Message-ID: <1542978.eROxFinZd4@coldstorage> User-Agent: KMail/4.14.1 (Linux/3.16.0-4-amd64; KDE/4.14.2; x86_64; ; ) In-Reply-To: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Mirapoint-Received-SPF: 195.10.99.101 coldstorage.localnet thomas@thomaszander.se 5 none X-Junkmail-Status: score=10/50, host=manxnetsf05.manx.net X-Junkmail-Signature-Raw: score=unknown, refid=str=0001.0A0B0206.55C4D773.02FC, ss=1, re=0.000, recu=0.000, reip=0.000, cl=1, cld=1, fgs=0, ip=0.0.0.0, so=2014-07-29 09:23:55, dmn=2013-03-21 17:37:32, mode=multiengine X-Junkmail-IWF: false X-Mirapoint-Virus-RAPID-Raw: score=unknown(0), refid=str=0001.0A0B0206.55C4D773.02FC, ss=1, re=0.000, recu=0.000, reip=0.000, cl=1, cld=1, fgs=0, ip=0.0.0.0, so=2014-07-29 09:23:55, dmn=2013-03-21 17:37:32 X-Mirapoint-Loop-Id: f02ffc3b2fb7ead4ffeb73bd283e3060 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,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 Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Fwd: Block size following technological growth X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Development Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 07 Aug 2015 16:12:18 -0000 On Thursday 6. August 2015 20.52.28 Pieter Wuille via bitcoin-dev wrote: > It's about reduction of trust. Running a full node and using it verify your > transactions is how you get personal assurance that everyone on the network > is following the rules. And if you don't do so yourself, the knowledge that > others are using full nodes and relying on them is valuable. Someone just > running 1000 nodes in a data center and not using them for anything does > not do anything for this, it's adding network capacity without use. > > That doesn't mean that the full node count (or the reachable full node > count even) are meaningless numbers. They are an indication of how hard it > is (for various reasons) to run/use a full node, and thus provide feedback. > But they are not the goal, just an indicator. You make a logical fallacy; I would agree that nodes are there for people to stop trusting someone that they have no trust-relationship with. But your conclusion that low node count is an indication that its hard to run one discards your own point. You forget the point that running a node is only needed if you don't know anyone you can trust to run it for you. I'm pretty darn sure that this will have a bigger effect on nodecount than how hard it is. Or, in other words, without a need to run a node you can't judge the difficulty of why there aren't more running. >From another mail; On Thursday 6. August 2015 17.26.11 Pieter Wuille via bitcoin-dev wrote: > Maybe. But I believe that it is essential to not take unnecessary risks, > and find a non-controversial solution. This is a very political answer; it doesn't actually say anything since 'unnecessary' is a personal judgment. Everyone will agree with you, but that doesn't mean anything. -- Tom Zander