From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.191] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-3.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1WXx6Q-0008AO-Em for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Wed, 09 Apr 2014 18:20:02 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com designates 209.85.223.178 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.223.178; envelope-from=laanwj@gmail.com; helo=mail-ie0-f178.google.com; Received: from mail-ie0-f178.google.com ([209.85.223.178]) by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1WXx6P-0002xf-JR for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Wed, 09 Apr 2014 18:20:02 +0000 Received: by mail-ie0-f178.google.com with SMTP id lx4so2723040iec.23 for ; Wed, 09 Apr 2014 11:19:56 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.50.73.130 with SMTP id l2mr6043208igv.42.1397067596282; Wed, 09 Apr 2014 11:19:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.64.70.131 with HTTP; Wed, 9 Apr 2014 11:19:56 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <53456B99.9010207@monetize.io> <00b77560-d7ed-4ed4-a4e5-eb1f00467a06@email.android.com> <0509477C-89F9-47C7-8820-29ACAD4A4A8E@bitsofproof.com> Date: Wed, 9 Apr 2014 20:19:56 +0200 Message-ID: From: Wladimir To: Mike Hearn Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e01160edcce0b5504f6a0255e X-Spam-Score: -0.6 (/) 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 (laanwj[at]gmail.com) -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record 1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message -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: 1WXx6P-0002xf-JR Cc: Bitcoin Dev Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Bitcoind-in-background mode for SPV wallets 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: Wed, 09 Apr 2014 18:20:02 -0000 --089e01160edcce0b5504f6a0255e Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 8:00 PM, Mike Hearn wrote: > The right way to start with this, if anyone cares, is to add > instrumentation to existing SPV wallet apps to report back to home base how > long they are running for, how much disk space / RAM they have, and > possibly what kind of hardware. > > I *strongly* suspect that the vast majority of SPV wallets are not left > running permanently, and run on laptops where battery life is at a premium. > These people will never want to run full nodes. > Bitcoins stands or falls with people running full nodes. If no one wants to volunteer resources to support the network anymore, we'll have failed. Sorry. I don't think it will ever make sense to run full nodes on consumer > hardware again. Our time is much better spent on optimising so it's cheaper > for full node operators to run them on cheap virtualised servers. > Most consumer hardware is much more powerful than 'cheap virtualized servers'. More memory, disks are cheap, and at least in the Netherlands home bandwidth is much cheaper than server bandwidth. Also: any optimization that helps running on cheap servers will also help running it on consumer hardware. It's not the one or the other. Wladimir --089e01160edcce0b5504f6a0255e Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

= On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 8:00 PM, Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net> w= rote:
= The right way to start with this, if anyone cares, is to add instrumentatio= n to existing SPV wallet apps to report back to home base how long they are= running for, how much disk space / RAM they have, and possibly what kind o= f hardware.

I strong= ly=C2=A0suspect that the vast majority of SPV wallets are not left runn= ing permanently, and run on laptops where battery life is at a premium. The= se people will never want to run full nodes.

Bitcoins stands or falls with people runn= ing full nodes.

If no one wants to = volunteer resources to support the network anymore, we'll have failed.<= br>

Sorry. I don= 9;t think it will ever make sense to run full nodes on consumer hardware ag= ain. Our time is much better spent on optimising so it's cheaper for fu= ll node operators to run them on cheap virtualised servers.

Most consumer hardware is much more = powerful than 'cheap virtualized servers'. More memory, disks are c= heap, and at least in the Netherlands home bandwidth is much cheaper than s= erver bandwidth.

Also: any optimization that helps running on cheap servers w= ill also help running it on consumer hardware. It's not the one or the = other.

Wladimir

--089e01160edcce0b5504f6a0255e--