From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.194] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-2.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1WX8lM-00006l-V4 for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Mon, 07 Apr 2014 12:34:56 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com designates 209.85.216.173 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.216.173; envelope-from=jameson.lopp@gmail.com; helo=mail-qc0-f173.google.com; Received: from mail-qc0-f173.google.com ([209.85.216.173]) by sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1WX8lM-00013U-9e for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Mon, 07 Apr 2014 12:34:56 +0000 Received: by mail-qc0-f173.google.com with SMTP id r5so6165557qcx.4 for ; Mon, 07 Apr 2014 05:34:50 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.229.54.201 with SMTP id r9mr33240024qcg.6.1396874090876; Mon, 07 Apr 2014 05:34:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.119.214] (BRONTO-SOFT.car1.Raleigh1.Level3.net. [4.59.160.2]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id u59sm22930081qga.8.2014.04.07.05.34.50 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Mon, 07 Apr 2014 05:34:50 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <53429B69.30008@gmail.com> Date: Mon, 07 Apr 2014 08:34:49 -0400 From: Jameson Lopp User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.4.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net References: <534297B8.4060506@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 1.6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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 (jameson.lopp[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: 1WX8lM-00013U-9e Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Why are we bleeding nodes? X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 07 Apr 2014 12:34:57 -0000 On 04/07/2014 08:26 AM, Pieter Wuille wrote: > In my opinion, the number of full nodes doesn't matter (as long as > it's enough to satisfy demand by other nodes). I agree, but if we don't quantify "demand" then we are practically blind. What is the plan? To wait until SPV clients start lagging / timing out because their requests cannot be handled by the nodes? For all I know, the network would run just fine on 100 nodes. But not knowing really irks me as an engineer. - Jameson