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 47579BCE for ; Wed, 15 Jul 2015 16:41:30 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-wg0-f48.google.com (mail-wg0-f48.google.com [74.125.82.48]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 51F4A140 for ; Wed, 15 Jul 2015 16:41:29 +0000 (UTC) Received: by wgmn9 with SMTP id n9so38293411wgm.0 for ; Wed, 15 Jul 2015 09:41:28 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :message-id:references:to; bh=7pl4DrsGZQjG9jEjdQGfkVye04rNQKjXAZduzWUL0jE=; b=SQQhpIY3pWSurbo8mP2k0ICJxF6D3EXsMdmFOusz7SFzyOhxSXBJpNbBwlS6bJIpa9 qwPbryu7fTkbs9ac0kyp9yeKnF4X/eTg3zj9HKocyTsTednbUo2wi7ydH5RmXqkvdpd0 hOwPKlRpBsXq0Q2b3L+KVf9hYSW313Ac7s2jZhXy5tVJJ1aL9x7HFSA2sTtiwbKBs/u+ 5dtWwJ4Zvssy7ySV15JyDdzW8N/di/iJ28LJAcwbGBv4JvguzLQGi8Y7AP6jF8MINgG5 FoC4mzn+xrcdsh0o2vCYzTDmmu5VYEL6Qm+llJd5cMg19qHEwxKXT9vCvrbSutH7t9wt 3L0w== X-Received: by 10.180.82.199 with SMTP id k7mr781221wiy.54.1436978488054; Wed, 15 Jul 2015 09:41:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.0.0.210] ([194.46.128.92]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id dl10sm8689211wjb.42.2015.07.15.09.41.25 (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Wed, 15 Jul 2015 09:41:27 -0700 (PDT) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_812369B3-EBA1-45A7-B3AF-E503A14C8FA6" Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.0 \(3067\)) From: Me In-Reply-To: Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2015 09:41:24 -0700 Message-Id: References: <24662b038abc45da7f3990e12a649b8a@airmail.cc> <55A66FA9.4010506@thinlink.com> <20150715151825.GB20029@savin.petertodd.org> <20150715155903.GC20029@savin.petertodd.org> To: Pieter Wuille X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3067) X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, FREEMAIL_FROM, HTML_MESSAGE, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE, 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 Cc: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Significant losses by double-spending unconfirmed transactions 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: Wed, 15 Jul 2015 16:41:30 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_812369B3-EBA1-45A7-B3AF-E503A14C8FA6 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 > It's such a misconception that running many nodes somehow helps. It's = much better that you run and control one or a few full nodes which you = actually use to validate your transactions, than to run 1000s of nodes = in third party datacenters. The latter only looks more decentralized. I guess we sort of disagree here, perhaps my word =E2=80=9Cstrength=E2=80=9D= was not the right word. Yes, running 6000 vs 7000 nodes makes no = difference for the network strength, but (a) running 50 nodes vs 5000 = does make a difference. I would love to see how the number of nodes drop = if companies like blockcypher turn off their servers. Obviously it would = not go 50. (b) running different clients (if blockcypher runs = non-reference-bitcoinD client) makes the network less open wide-spread = bugs I feel we are really derailing the original topic btw :-) > On Jul 15, 2015, at 9:11 AM, Pieter Wuille = wrote: >=20 > On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 12:06 PM, Me via bitcoin-dev = > wrote: > Have you talk to them? If not, how can you be sure they don=E2=80=99t = run large number of standard nodes and actually make the network = stronger? Personally I never bring claims like this if I just assume. A = lot of people in the community really trust you, do you realize you = potentially hurt them for no reason? >=20 > Running normal full nodes only provides extra service to nodes = synchronizing and lightweight clients. It does not "make the network = stronger" in the sense that it does not reduce the trust the = participants need to have in each other. >=20 > It's such a misconception that running many nodes somehow helps. It's = much better that you run and control one or a few full nodes which you = actually use to validate your transactions, than to run 1000s of nodes = in third party datacenters. The latter only looks more decentralized. >=20 > --=20 > Pieter >=20 --Apple-Mail=_812369B3-EBA1-45A7-B3AF-E503A14C8FA6 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8
It's such a misconception that = running many nodes somehow helps. It's much better that you run and = control one or a few full nodes which you actually use to validate your = transactions, than to run 1000s of nodes in third party datacenters. The = latter only looks more = decentralized.

I guess we sort of = disagree here, perhaps my word =E2=80=9Cstrength=E2=80=9D was not the = right word. Yes, running 6000 vs 7000 nodes makes no difference for the = network strength, but (a) running 50 nodes vs 5000 does make a = difference. I would love to see how the number of nodes drop if = companies like blockcypher turn off their servers. Obviously it would = not go 50. (b) running different clients (if blockcypher runs = non-reference-bitcoinD client) makes the network less open wide-spread = bugs


I feel we are really derailing the = original topic btw  :-)





On = Jul 15, 2015, at 9:11 AM, Pieter Wuille <pieter.wuille@gmail.com> wrote:

On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 12:06 PM, Me via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> = wrote:
Have you talk to = them? If not, how can you be sure they don=E2=80=99t run large number of = standard nodes and actually make the network stronger? Personally I = never bring claims like this if I just assume. A lot of people in the = community really trust you, do you realize you potentially hurt them for = no reason?

Running normal full nodes only provides = extra service to nodes synchronizing and lightweight clients. It does = not "make the network stronger" in the sense that it does not reduce the = trust the participants need to have in each other.

It's such a misconception that running = many nodes somehow helps. It's much better that you run and control one = or a few full nodes which you actually use to validate your = transactions, than to run 1000s of nodes in third party datacenters. The = latter only looks more decentralized.

--
Pieter


= --Apple-Mail=_812369B3-EBA1-45A7-B3AF-E503A14C8FA6--