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 A8B26411 for ; Wed, 29 Jul 2015 16:53:55 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-ig0-f179.google.com (mail-ig0-f179.google.com [209.85.213.179]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3708A153 for ; Wed, 29 Jul 2015 16:53:55 +0000 (UTC) Received: by igbpg9 with SMTP id pg9so170778577igb.0 for ; Wed, 29 Jul 2015 09:53:54 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=JnMfrEZ/M/kaoEewipxRJ017rEwU8mR3U5hKIC9W+SQ=; b=vpdnMt0WhQhHzswyDC5q+/39R2MRgAgdSjPdwfMiPq16EYCKJdZ4uh1nO5GA/Nf9OF oK2SDKLfgSiOrRyjVuDumhkNWKD7OOti/aNGryCYF2FZt+dcAlaAdv85NOi3cihQcyTP eq5Ste5Ox/UDcP4JoWdidJhkwXmddatY36LJ/pW2psh3pLgELGOFmUJB/UEPmFpWfO/4 6Ca5gKe8aQ7p/62xYOSjvHxshIwD5TsCTTJZgUODRI4FAl9XnZql9+grCSotlhEj4tIF ClYrWGZD55KcIOQiUTH5d5jCkVqVJSRVnjw3d+PqWc+kQpbYAgmjqyjY6dGIfzA46SpS ToWQ== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.50.143.37 with SMTP id sb5mr3386763igb.62.1438188834617; Wed, 29 Jul 2015 09:53:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.107.48.212 with HTTP; Wed, 29 Jul 2015 09:53:54 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <1B7F00D3-41AE-44BF-818D-EC4EF279DC11@gmail.com> Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2015 16:53:54 +0000 Message-ID: From: Gregory Maxwell To: Mike Hearn Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, FREEMAIL_FROM, 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 16:53:55 -0000 On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 9:59 AM, Mike Hearn via bitcoin-dev wrote: > I do love history lessons from people who weren't actually there. I doubt the rest of us really enjoy hearing these "lessons" from from you where you wildly distort history to reflect your views. > Satoshi explicitly envisioned a future where only miners ran nodes, so it > had nothing to do with this either. As others have pointed out-- even if this were true, --- so what? Many errors were made early on in Bitcoin. But in this case it's not actually true and I'm really getting fed up with this continued self-appointment of all that the creator of the system thought. Your position and knoweldge is not special or priveleged compared to many of the people that you are arguing with. It was _well_ understood while the creator of the system was around that putting every consensus decision into the world into one system would not scale; and also 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. Don't think you can claim otherwise, because doing so is flat out wrong. In the above statement you're outright backwards-- there was a clear expectation that all who ran nodes would mine. The delegation of consensus to third parties was unforseen. Presumably Bitcoin core making mining inaccessable to users in software was also unforseen. > Validators validate for themselves. Calculating a local UTXO set and then > not using it for anything doesn't help anyone. SPV wallets need filtering > and serving capability, but a computer can filter and serve the chain > without validating it. > > The only purposes non-mining, non-rpc-serving, non-Qt-wallet-sustaining full > nodes are needed for with today's network are: [...] > Outside of serving lightweight P2P wallets there's no purpose in running a > P2P node if you aren't mining, or using it as a **trusted node for your own > operations**. You wrote a long list of activities that are actually irrelevant to many node users with the result of burrying the main reason any party should be running a node (emphasis mine). The incentives of the system demand as it exist today that many other economically significant parties run nodes in order to keep the half dozen miners from having a blank check to do whatever they want (including supporting their operations through inflation)-- do not think they wouldn't, as we've seen their happy to skip verification entirely. (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: The SPV model which you've fixated on as the true nature of bitcoin has been demonstrated in practice to have a potentially empty security claim.) > Miners who don't validate have a habit of bleeding money: that's the > system working as designed. The information I have currently is that the parties engaging in that activity found it to be tremendously profitable, even including losses from issues.