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 708564A5 for ; Wed, 29 Jul 2015 18:03:24 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-io0-f177.google.com (mail-io0-f177.google.com [209.85.223.177]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6F862161 for ; Wed, 29 Jul 2015 18:03:23 +0000 (UTC) Received: by iodd187 with SMTP id d187so29535165iod.2 for ; Wed, 29 Jul 2015 11:03:22 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=vinumeris.com; s=google; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=ejvA2VsMKdvolWjhI5y6jthcLdWfd/mLb0FclDUhvLk=; b=C2hEhRA2ESrCW7UsX97uBZsSuh2ypPVfKxuVAqWv+njZh8kQWGVSm3K3dxoVqpetL3 IWbgsyFAvqHkrw1d8y9kEGs2PXuroc+smezJd/d/agjj/e3cZiWwP2GuKAd0skmWe8HK kciIeQWuJc9FE7Fnh+A05wuP8wkL32PEc+56s= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=ejvA2VsMKdvolWjhI5y6jthcLdWfd/mLb0FclDUhvLk=; b=Vh6RLQcxoIuLhupcP3ZkafIg5ZzcxSckB7Ol1ToAhvqZ94nDzR74Jhz14go4NJZ1tb ykahmDGQl0cqzX///4HEu5YIqPiwklIPXpH5Q6kGEb3ZSFHpCdexZSPmhJ9nhbj0v9EU XxhB5jNZo7s0lnMaLgtt7lLPh9Uo9KgGE27K3T1wxR4SlVp7CWDSt9HIQhO1CEQjQ+hq Rrkt/3P5iFtzxexMEmYddk2cSWcjr7p7FOZjvmNoEvoJ0MuwXa5gcI+N8wrQ4h0FOwZt W9Fdf7MTFqRWxJI58gOqi4jB47GPHhHbbj3BXaSitQ45dR2Ze305mVAAu3AFdDtNNdyk Amlw== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnMFt+9nInEWs58Ggicm41QzT9PQz33xs2Ss14vyqNARD/+PUV4DgJYyPJ5z2eYEFS5SaNA MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.107.46.96 with SMTP id i93mr4001697ioo.102.1438193002846; Wed, 29 Jul 2015 11:03:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.50.108.111 with HTTP; Wed, 29 Jul 2015 11:03:22 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <1B7F00D3-41AE-44BF-818D-EC4EF279DC11@gmail.com> Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2015 20:03:22 +0200 Message-ID: From: Mike Hearn To: Gregory Maxwell Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113726ac0db1b7051c07672d X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HTML_MESSAGE,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 Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Why Satoshi's temporary anti-spam measure isn't temporary 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, 29 Jul 2015 18:03:24 -0000 --001a113726ac0db1b7051c07672d Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 > > It was _well_ .... understood that the users of Bitcoin would wish to > protect its decenteralization by limiting the size of the chain to keep it > verifyable on small devices. > No it wasn't. That is something you invented yourself much later. "Small devices" isn't even defined anywhere, so there can't have been any such understanding. The actual understanding was the opposite. Satoshi's words: "At first, most users would run network nodes, but as the network grows beyond a certain point, it would be left more and more to specialists with server farms of specialized hardware." That is from 2008: http://satoshi.nakamotoinstitute.org/emails/cryptography/2/#selection-75.16-83.14 Then he went on to talk about Moore's law and streaming HD videos and the like. At no point did he ever talk about limiting the system for "small devices". I have been both working on and using Bitcoin for longer than you have been around, Gregory. Please don't attempt to bullshit me about what the plan was. And stop obscuring what this is about. It's not some personality cult - the reason I keep beating you over the head with Satoshi's words is because it's that founding vision of the project that brought everyone together, and gave us all a shared goal. If Satoshi had said from the start, "Bitcoin cannot ever scale. So I intend it to be heavily limited and used only by a handful of people for rare transactions. I picked 1mb as an arbitrary limit to ensure it never gets popular." ... then I'd have not bothered getting involved. I'd have said, huh, I don't really feel like putting effort into a system that is intended to NOT be popular. And so would many other people. Don't think you can claim otherwise, because doing so is flat out wrong. > I just did claim otherwise and no, I am not wrong at all. (Which, incidentially, is insanely toxic to any security argument for > SPV; ---- and now we see the market failure that results from your and > Gavin years long campaign to ignore problems in the mining ecosystem: > Since when have we "campaigned" to "ignore problems" in the mining ecosystem? What does that even mean? Was it not I who wrote this blog post? http://blog.bitcoinfoundation.org/mining-decentralisation-the-low-hanging-fruit/ Gregory, you are getting really crazy now. Stop it. The trend towards mining centralisation is not the fault of Gavin or myself, or anyone else. And SPV is exactly what was always intended to be used. It's not something I "fixated" on, it's right there in the white paper. Satoshi even encouraged me to keep working on bitcoinj before he left! Look, it's clear you have decided that the way Bitcoin was meant to evolve isn't to your personal liking. That's fine. Go make an alt coin where your founding documents state that it's intended to always run on a 2015 Raspberry Pi, or whatever it is you mean by "small device". Remove SPV capability from the protocol so everyone has to fully validate. Make sure that's the understanding that everyone has from day one about what your alt coin is for. Then when someone says, gee, it'd be nice if we had some more capacity, you or someone else can go point at the announcement emails and say "no, GregCoin is meant to always be verifiable on small devices, that's our social contract and it's written into the consensus rules for that reason". But your attempt to convert Bitcoin into that altcoin by exploiting a temporary hack is desperate, and deeply upsetting to many people. Not many quit their jobs and created companies to build products only for today's tiny user base. My list of "things a full node is useful for" wasn't ordered by importance, by the way. --001a113726ac0db1b7051c07672d Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
It was _well_ ....=C2=A0understood that the user= s of Bitcoin would=C2=A0wish to protect its decenteralization by limiting t= he size of the=C2=A0chain to keep it verifyable on small devices.

No it wasn't. That is something you invented= yourself much later. "Small devices" isn't even defined anyw= here, so there can't have been any such understanding.

The actual understanding was the opposite. Satoshi's words:

"At first, most users would run = network nodes, but as the=C2=A0= network grows beyond a certain point, it would be left more and more to=C2=A0specialists with server farms= of specialized hardware."

That is fro= m 2008:
=C2=A0


I have been both working on and using Bitcoin for longer than you h= ave been around, Gregory. Please don't attempt to bullshit me about wha= t the plan was. And stop obscuring what this is about. It's not some pe= rsonality cult - the reason I keep beating you over the head with Satoshi&#= 39;s words is because it's that founding vision of the project that bro= ught everyone together, and gave us all a shared goal.

=
If Satoshi had said from the start,

=C2=A0 = =C2=A0"Bitcoin cannot ever scale. So I intend it to be heavily limited= and used only by a handful of people for rare transactions. I picked 1mb a= s an arbitrary limit to ensure it never gets popular."

<= /div>
... then I'd have not bothered getting involved. I'd have= said, huh, I don't really feel like putting effort into a system that = is intended to NOT be popular. And so would many other people.

Don't think you c= an claim otherwise, because doing so is flat out wrong.

I just did claim otherwise and no, I am not wrong at all.<= /div>

(Which, incidentially, i= s insanely toxic to any security argument for
SPV; ---- and now we see the market failure that results from your and
Gavin years long campaign to ignore problems in the mining ecosystem:

Since when have we "campaigned" to= "ignore problems" in the mining ecosystem? What does that even m= ean? Was it not I who wrote this blog post?


Gregory, you a= re getting really crazy now. Stop it. The trend towards mining centralisati= on is not the fault of Gavin or myself, or anyone else. And SPV is exactly = what was always intended to be used. It's not something I "fixated= " on, it's right there in the white paper. Satoshi even encouraged= me to keep working on bitcoinj before he left!

Look, it's clear you have decided that the way Bitcoin was= meant to evolve isn't to your personal liking. That's fine. Go mak= e an alt coin where your founding documents state that it's intended to= always run on a 2015 Raspberry Pi, or whatever it is you mean by "sma= ll device". Remove SPV capability from the protocol so everyone has to= fully validate. Make sure that's the understanding that everyone has f= rom day one about what your alt coin is for. Then when someone says, gee, i= t'd be nice if we had some more capacity, you or someone else can go po= int at the announcement emails and say "no, GregCoin is meant to alway= s be verifiable on small devices, that's our social contract and it'= ;s written into the consensus rules for that reason".

But your attempt to convert Bitcoin into that altcoin by exploitin= g a temporary hack is desperate, and deeply upsetting to many people. Not m= any quit their jobs and created companies to build products only for today&= #39;s tiny user base.


My list of &q= uot;things a full node is useful for" wasn't ordered by importance= , by the way.
--001a113726ac0db1b7051c07672d--