From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.194] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-2.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1WXD9W-0005v8-Tk for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Mon, 07 Apr 2014 17:16:10 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com designates 209.85.215.45 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.215.45; envelope-from=gmaxwell@gmail.com; helo=mail-la0-f45.google.com; Received: from mail-la0-f45.google.com ([209.85.215.45]) by sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1WXD9W-0003UI-30 for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Mon, 07 Apr 2014 17:16:10 +0000 Received: by mail-la0-f45.google.com with SMTP id hr17so5008498lab.4 for ; Mon, 07 Apr 2014 10:16:03 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.152.243.35 with SMTP id wv3mr2200216lac.47.1396890963482; Mon, 07 Apr 2014 10:16:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.112.89.68 with HTTP; Mon, 7 Apr 2014 10:16:03 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <5342D9FA.8080102@monetize.io> References: <5342C833.5030906@gmail.com> <5342D1DB.8060203@monetize.io> <5342D9FA.8080102@monetize.io> Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2014 10:16:03 -0700 Message-ID: From: Gregory Maxwell To: Mark Friedenbach Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Score: 1.1 (+) 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) 1.2 RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET RBL: Received via a relay in bl.spamcop.net [Blocked - see ] -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 1.5 SF_NO_SPF_SPAM SF_NO_SPF_SPAM X-Headers-End: 1WXD9W-0003UI-30 Cc: Bitcoin Development Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Why are we bleeding nodes? 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: Mon, 07 Apr 2014 17:16:11 -0000 On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 10:01 AM, Mark Friedenbach wrote: > On 04/07/2014 09:57 AM, Gregory Maxwell wrote: >> That is an implementation issue=E2=80=94 mostly one that arises as an in= direct >> consequence of not having headers first and the parallel fetch, not a >> requirements issue. > > Oh, absolutely. But the question "why are people not running full > nodes?" has to do with the current implementation, not abstract > capabilities of a future version of the bitcoind code base. The distinction is very important because it's a matter of things we can and should fix vs things that cannot be fixed except by changing goals/incentives! Opposite approaches to handling them. When I read "resource requirements of a full node are moving beyond" I didn't extract from that that "there are implementation issues that need to be improved to make it work better for low resource users" due to the word "requirements".