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 C3059905 for ; Sat, 28 Jan 2017 04:04:16 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from zinan.dashjr.org (zinan.dashjr.org [192.3.11.21]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 56D8CE1 for ; Sat, 28 Jan 2017 04:04:16 +0000 (UTC) Received: from ishibashi.localnet (unknown [IPv6:2001:470:5:265:a45d:823b:2d27:961c]) (Authenticated sender: luke-jr) by zinan.dashjr.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id AD4E438A1799; Sat, 28 Jan 2017 04:03:06 +0000 (UTC) X-Hashcash: 1:25:170128:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org::0HpyN91p+Ne90Bbc:abWT+ X-Hashcash: 1:25:170128:andrew.johnson83@gmail.com::xZXdMEVB1ENIeRMX:cpdFl X-Hashcash: 1:25:170128:decker.christian@gmail.com::07qfrMpyUydeSbGH:a4xcN From: Luke Dashjr To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org, Andrew Johnson Date: Sat, 28 Jan 2017 04:03:03 +0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.13.7 (Linux/4.4.39-gentoo; KDE/4.14.24; x86_64; ; ) References: <201701270107.01092.luke@dashjr.org> <20170127212810.GA5856@nex> In-Reply-To: X-PGP-Key-Fingerprint: E463 A93F 5F31 17EE DE6C 7316 BD02 9424 21F4 889F X-PGP-Key-ID: BD02942421F4889F X-PGP-Keyserver: hkp://pgp.mit.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-15" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <201701280403.05558.luke@dashjr.org> X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD 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] Three hardfork-related BIPs X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 28 Jan 2017 04:04:16 -0000 On Friday, January 27, 2017 11:53:02 PM Andrew Johnson via bitcoin-dev wrote: > I don't think that the 17% yearly increase is too far off base considering > current global trends(although I still don't particularly like the idea of > centrally planning the limit, especially not that far into the future), but > the 66% decrease first seems completely out of touch with reality. Assume as a premise (despite your apparent disagreement below) that for Bitcoin to function, a supermajority of economic activity needs to be verified using full nodes operated by the recipient. Evidence suggests that at this current time, at best 10% of economic activity is in fact using a full node to verify the transaction. On this basis, it seems pretty clear that serious action must be taken to change the status quo, and so for efforts to do so without dropping the block size have proven ineffective. > I'd also like to point out to Luke that Satoshi envisioned most full nodes > running in data centers in the white paper, not every single user needs to > run a full node to use bitcoin. Satoshi envisioned a system where full nodes could publish proofs of invalid blocks that would be automatically verified by SPV nodes and used to ensure even they maintained the equivalent of full node security so long as they were not isolated. But as a matter of fact, this vision has proven impossible, and there is to date no viable theory on how it might be fixed. As a result, the only way for nodes to have full-node-security is to actually be a true full node, and therefore the plan of only having full nodes in datacenters is simply not realistic without transforming Bitcoin into a centralised system. > That a lot of people want to continue to move in that direction shouldn't > be a surprise. I think it's likely safe to say that if this were a possibility, everyone would want to continue to move in that direction. But as the facts stand, it simply isn't possible. Luke