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 1WXyFh-00030a-2b for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Wed, 09 Apr 2014 19:33:41 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com designates 209.85.215.53 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.215.53; envelope-from=gmaxwell@gmail.com; helo=mail-la0-f53.google.com; Received: from mail-la0-f53.google.com ([209.85.215.53]) by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1WXyFg-00062W-5F for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Wed, 09 Apr 2014 19:33:41 +0000 Received: by mail-la0-f53.google.com with SMTP id b8so1548746lan.12 for ; Wed, 09 Apr 2014 12:33:33 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.112.126.7 with SMTP id mu7mr8251706lbb.17.1397072013473; Wed, 09 Apr 2014 12:33:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.112.89.68 with HTTP; Wed, 9 Apr 2014 12:33:33 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <5345986C.3040901@gmail.com> References: <53456B99.9010207@monetize.io> <00b77560-d7ed-4ed4-a4e5-eb1f00467a06@email.android.com> <0509477C-89F9-47C7-8820-29ACAD4A4A8E@bitsofproof.com> <534592E2.7040800@gmail.com> <5345986C.3040901@gmail.com> Date: Wed, 9 Apr 2014 12:33:33 -0700 Message-ID: From: Gregory Maxwell To: Justus Ranvier Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 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 (gmaxwell[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: 1WXyFg-00062W-5F Cc: Bitcoin Development 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 19:33:41 -0000 On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 11:58 AM, Justus Ranvier wrote: > Anyone reading the archives of the list will see about triple the > number of people independently confirming the resource usage problem > than they will see denying it, so I'm not particularly worried. The list has open membership, there is no particular qualification or background required to post here. Optimal use of an information source requires critical reading and understanding the limitations of the medium. Counting comments is usually not a great way to assess technical considerations on an open public forum. Doubly so because those comments were not actually talking about the same thing I am talking about. Existing implementations are inefficient in many known ways (and, no doubt, some unknown ones). This list is about developing protocol and implementations including improving their efficiency. When talking about incentives the costs you need to consider are the costs of the best realistic option. As far as I know there is no doubt from anyone technically experienced that under the current network rules full nodes can be operated with vastly less resources than current implementations use, it's just a question of the relatively modest implementation improvements. When you argue that Bitcoin doesn't have the right incentives (and thus something??) I retort that the actual resource _requirements_ are for the protocol very low. I gave specific example numbers to enable correction or clarification if I've said something wrong or controversial. Pointing out that existing implementations are not that currently as efficient as the underlying requirements and that some large number of users do not like the efficiency of existing implementations doesn't tell me anything I disagree with or didn't already know. Whats being discussed around here contributes to prioritizing improvements over the existing implementations. I hope this clarifies something.