Re: [bitcoindev] Re: [BIP Draft] P2P UTXO Set Sharing

[Eric Voskuil <eric@voskuil.org>]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2674 bytes --]

Responding to a few earlier comments.

> The same applies to the 32 GB RAM minimum noted for libbitcoin... which
> already excludes a large share of consumer hardware outside high-income
> regions...
> Following the trajectory of the last few years to its conclusion, the
> minimum is likely to be 64 GB next year, then 128 GB the year after, and
> validating with libbitcoin will soon require the latest generation of
> Nvidia chips. Validation time will keep going down on that path, but the
> user base it serves will keep shrinking.

Libbitcoin significantly outperforms bitcoind on a 16GB Raspberry Pi5.

https://x.com/evoskuil/status/2058574669708443756

All it takes is changing the config settings that target larger machines. 
Despite 16 years of optimization and money poured into bitcoind, and its 
various clones and ports, it underperforms on both modest and high end 
hardware. We are a small team of volunteers, just getting started on 
performance tuning and optimization.

> I am obviously exaggerating somewhat to make a point:

You aren't just exaggerating, you sound delusional.

> it is easy to construct a plausible-sounding slippery slope argument,

"plausible-sounding" is one way to put it, and yet the truth of it was 
clearly demonstrated 13 days after you dismissed it.

> including one about libbitcoin's hardware trajectory. And I don't think
> you are able to prove today that libbitcoin will not follow this path in 
the
> future. That is exactly why I don't find your similar argument persuasive.

Well it only took me 13 days for the stunning arrival of the very scenario 
you denied. And the hardware fantasy that you fabricated to make this point 
actually applies to bitcoind architectures, not Libbitcoin. I would call 
that unpersuasive.

> And in all seriousness, I think at least some Bitcoin implementations 
should
> aim to be accessible with low bandwidth and minimum hardware requirements
> compatible with widely available consumer hardware outside high-income 
regions.
> That is what many of the developers I work with are aiming for.

No, that is what we are doing. What you are doing here is called snake oil. 
My suggestion is you roll the clock back a decade and do the work that 
needed to be done in order to avoid this predicted outcome.

e

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Bitcoin Development Mailing List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bitcoindev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bitcoindev/929d44f7-42d8-4670-8cf6-d01d44c36c2en%40googlegroups.com.

[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: text/html, Size: 3165 bytes --]