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 5A2D288B for ; Fri, 7 Aug 2015 17:50:03 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-la0-f53.google.com (mail-la0-f53.google.com [209.85.215.53]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 94C0A165 for ; Fri, 7 Aug 2015 17:50:02 +0000 (UTC) Received: by lagz9 with SMTP id z9so26182877lag.3 for ; Fri, 07 Aug 2015 10:50:01 -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=iKZBiqtVg3PCFvE2drt8I6BakkScyX1zFHNS1V2Vlek=; b=v6FHPJxy/w7l12ExldtOsQNUn5Bm3p21CIy8QukuJKn6o1PcUsFSJDiHIsi557sRfx txvxu4ncsLriPsUx5L8m5m7QPe8z0I3UgsU/KduCKNm6RSX/C50kIrfPGnQJSda+jiBA +PceL3s/7vZbwoICbBkhCJA2giMMMFn0VnXoWFiNqHMuYyTijRSIr8hhiGc56LKwPrhB mZRC58qdXQ14bzEkNdWmcfNVggPbixyZDyZHG8lTjDgMQFnKEn1XpA3qJwSzYwofUd9X 4Lg5quTTt+WaFlzpv45EWhIQBGcRX+TLiPTyqJzz07APLcBJdDCfuBdFnVZiu7jqvcX7 FViw== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.152.22.99 with SMTP id c3mr9434788laf.32.1438969801016; Fri, 07 Aug 2015 10:50:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.25.143.195 with HTTP; Fri, 7 Aug 2015 10:50:00 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <1542978.eROxFinZd4@coldstorage> Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2015 13:50:00 -0400 Message-ID: From: Gavin Andresen To: Pieter Wuille Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e0158b6c0d50c86051cbc4358 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,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] Fwd: Block size following technological growth 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: Fri, 07 Aug 2015 17:50:03 -0000 --089e0158b6c0d50c86051cbc4358 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 12:30 PM, Pieter Wuille via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > If the incentives for running a node don't weight up against the > cost/difficulty using a full node yourself for a majority of people in the > ecosystem, I would argue that there is a problem. As Bitcoin's fundamental > improvement over other systems is the lack of need for trust, I believe > that with increased adoption should also come an increased (in absolute > terms) incentive for people to use a full node. I'm seeing the opposite > trend, and that is worrying IMHO. Are you saying that unless the majority of people in the ecosystem decide to trust nothing but the genesis block hash (decide to run a full node) there is a problem? If so, then we do have a fundamental difference of opinion, but I've misunderstood how you think about trust/centralization/convenience tradeoffs in the past. I believe people in the Bitcoin ecosystem will choose different tradeoffs, and I believe that is OK-- people should be free to make those tradeoffs. And given that the majority of people in the ecosystem were deciding that using a centralized service or an SPV-level-security wallet was better even two or three years ago when blocks were tiny (I'd have to go back and dig up number-of-full-nodes and number-of-active-wallets at the big web-wallet providers, but I bet there were an order of magnitude more people using centralized services than running full nodes even back then), I firmly believe that block size has very little to do with the decision to run a full node or not. -- -- Gavin Andresen --089e0158b6c0d50c86051cbc4358 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

= On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 12:30 PM, Pieter Wuille via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
=
If the incentives for running a node don'= ;t weight up against the cost/difficulty using a full node yourself for a m= ajority of people in the ecosystem, I would argue that there is a problem. = As Bitcoin's fundamental improvement over other systems is the lack of = need for trust, I believe that with increased adoption should also come an = increased (in absolute terms) incentive for people to use a full node. I= 9;m seeing the opposite trend, and that is worrying IMHO.

Are you saying that unless the majority of people in the ecosystem dec= ide to trust nothing but the genesis block hash (decide to run a full node)= there is a problem?

If so, then we do have a fundamental difference= of opinion, but I've misunderstood how you think about trust/centraliz= ation/convenience tradeoffs in the past.
I believe people in the Bitcoin ecosyste= m will choose different tradeoffs, and I believe that is OK-- people should= be free to make those tradeoffs.

And given that the majority of people in the ec= osystem were deciding that using a centralized service or an SPV-level-secu= rity wallet was better even two or three years ago when blocks were tiny (I= 'd have to go back and dig up number-of-full-nodes and number-of-active= -wallets at the big web-wallet providers, but I bet there were an order of = magnitude more people using centralized services than running full nodes ev= en back then), I firmly believe that block size has very little to do with = the decision to run a full node or not.

--
--
Gavin Andresen
--089e0158b6c0d50c86051cbc4358--