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 1Z4lif-0005wZ-Le for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Tue, 16 Jun 2015 07:55:41 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com designates 209.85.220.176 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.220.176; envelope-from=voisine@gmail.com; helo=mail-qk0-f176.google.com; Received: from mail-qk0-f176.google.com ([209.85.220.176]) by sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1Z4lie-0002k0-Jt for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Tue, 16 Jun 2015 07:55:41 +0000 Received: by qkbp125 with SMTP id p125so587694qkb.2 for ; Tue, 16 Jun 2015 00:55:35 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.140.97.136 with SMTP id m8mr41116282qge.32.1434441335206; Tue, 16 Jun 2015 00:55:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.140.91.37 with HTTP; Tue, 16 Jun 2015 00:55:35 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <201506160341.10994.luke@dashjr.org> Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2015 00:55:35 -0700 Message-ID: From: Aaron Voisine To: Justus Ranvier Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113a5d523c780d05189de6c0 X-Spam-Score: -0.6 (/) 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 (voisine[at]gmail.com) -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record 1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message -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: 1Z4lie-0002k0-Jt Cc: Bitcoin Dev Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] The Bitcoin Node Market 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: Tue, 16 Jun 2015 07:55:41 -0000 --001a113a5d523c780d05189de6c0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable > Suppose a billion mobile phones wanted to run SPV wallets tomorrow. Who > would provide the nodes they would need connect to? The SPV wallet author would if they wanted their wallet to function. Aaron Voisine co-founder and CEO breadwallet.com On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 10:28 PM, wrote: > On 2015-06-16 03:49, Kevin Greene wrote: > > =E2=80=8BHah, fair enough, there is no such thing as the "right" way to= do > > anything. But I still think punishing users who use SPV wallets is =E2= =80=8Ba > > less-than-ideal way to incentive people to run full nodes. Right now > > SPV is > > the best way that exists for mobile phones to participate in the > > network in > > a decentralized way. This proposal makes the user experience for mobile > > wallets a little more confusing and annoying. > > Suppose a billion mobile phones wanted to run SPV wallets tomorrow. Who > would provide the nodes they would need connect to? The decentralization > fairy? > > There's absolutely no reason that paying for connectivity would be any > more confusing or annoying than transaction fees are. > > If some full nodes in the network started offering paid connection > slots, that would just mean that users who checked the "pay subscription > fee" box in their wallet configuration would have an easier time > connecting than the users who did't, just like how your transaction > might eventually get mined without a fee but paying one makes it faster > and more probable. > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------= ----- > _______________________________________________ > Bitcoin-development mailing list > Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development > --001a113a5d523c780d05189de6c0 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>=C2=A0Suppose a billion= mobile phones wanted to run SPV wallets tomorrow. Who
> would provide the nodes they would need connect = to?=C2=A0

<= span style=3D"font-size:13px">The SPV wallet author would if they wanted th= eir wallet to function.


Aaron Voisine
co-founder and CEO
breadwallet.com

On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 10:28 PM, <= justusranvier@riseup.net> wrote:
On 2015-06-16 03:49, Kevin Greene wrote:
> =E2=80=8BHah, fair enough, there is no such thing as the "right&q= uot; way to do
> anything. But I still think punishing users who use SPV wallets is =E2= =80=8Ba
> less-than-ideal way to incentive people to run full nodes. Right now > SPV is
> the best way that exists for mobile phones to participate in the
> network in
> a decentralized way. This proposal makes the user experience for mobil= e
> wallets a little more confusing and annoying.

Suppose a billion mobile phones wanted to run SPV wallets tomorrow. = Who
would provide the nodes they would need connect to? The decentralization fairy?

There's absolutely no reason that paying for connectivity would be any<= br> more confusing or annoying than transaction fees are.

If some full nodes in the network started offering paid connection
slots, that would just mean that users who checked the "pay subscripti= on
fee" box in their wallet configuration would have an easier time
connecting than the users who did't, just like how your transaction
might eventually get mined without a fee but paying one makes it faster
and more probable.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------= ---
_______________________________________________
Bitcoin-development mailing list
Bitcoin-develo= pment@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/= listinfo/bitcoin-development

--001a113a5d523c780d05189de6c0--