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 009778A6 for ; Fri, 7 Aug 2015 18:05:32 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-wi0-f175.google.com (mail-wi0-f175.google.com [209.85.212.175]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 889D3212 for ; Fri, 7 Aug 2015 18:05:30 +0000 (UTC) Received: by wibxm9 with SMTP id xm9so70686593wib.0 for ; Fri, 07 Aug 2015 11:05:29 -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=+zoaCT4gqG9hQIj5S4TYV8kFLdVEeRVsKOczGpB+Ay0=; b=nHdIRol+QdnCPlgw6PI0j9CwQ44DBHaLzXmXJYw10mx0Uzag6SIt8mJXmAuyQH/ffE 6mxtEyP8l8ASy5QgJv6rFVDz60WfQFaf4h7BqQJtBWcLRmM4aplo0n38TfZ7CB4j1DxH zlr4GQRUyiyHvqPBhMMFSWgphyv/dfD3t3fTGM7iIX77xIKg4hhsAeq1MInRyIB/dbRC R3EVO0Jr/RiUIu4ZmTC7fC2Bc3hH7meQw/FoODpArSwnCmGGG+M9+03j/mdLKfOkNmN5 KgsdkFcTSJXLkClTjUD2Xml9Wi3svjYicJYZ7bfmByqMcSaq7VDJijDRZxJcXB+az/sr TtZA== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.180.218.195 with SMTP id pi3mr9263873wic.71.1438970729305; Fri, 07 Aug 2015 11:05:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.27.171.138 with HTTP; Fri, 7 Aug 2015 11:05:29 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <1542978.eROxFinZd4@coldstorage> Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2015 14:05:29 -0400 Message-ID: From: Jameson Lopp To: Gavin Andresen Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1134ce04299b31051cbc7be7 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 18:05:32 -0000 --001a1134ce04299b31051cbc7be7 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Anecdotally I've seen two primary reasons posed for not running a node: 1) For enthusiasts who want to altruistically run a node at home, it's usually a bandwidth / quality of service problem. There are tools to help work around this, but most users aren't sysadmins and would prefer a simple configuration option in bitcoind and a slider / selector in the QT client to throttle the total bandwidth usage. This issue has been open for years: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/273 - if you want to make it easier for enthusiasts to run nodes, I'd start there. 2) For businesses, it's not so much an issue with the resources of installing / running / maintaining a node, it's an issue with the lack of indexing options offered by bitcoind. Thus the business will also need to run their own indexing solution - an out-of-the-box solution such as Insight or Toshi might work, but for more custom indexing you have to roll your own software - this is where it actually becomes expensive. Depending upon the query volume / latency needs of the business, it may not make sense to bother administering bitcoind instances, the indexing software, and its databases - using a third party API will probably be more efficient. - Jameson On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 1:50 PM, Gavin Andresen via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > > 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 > > > _______________________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev > > --001a1134ce04299b31051cbc7be7 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Anecdotally I've seen two primary reasons posed for no= t running a node:

1) For enthusiasts who want to altruis= tically run a node at home, it's usually a bandwidth / quality of servi= ce problem. There are tools to help work around this, but most users aren&#= 39;t sysadmins and would prefer a simple configuration option in bitcoind a= nd a slider / selector in the QT client to throttle the total bandwidth usa= ge. This issue has been open for years: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/273 - = if you want to make it easier for enthusiasts to run nodes, I'd start t= here.

2) For businesses, it's not so much an i= ssue with the resources of installing / running / maintaining a node, it= 9;s an issue with the lack of indexing options offered by bitcoind. Thus th= e business will also need to run their own indexing solution - an out-of-th= e-box solution such as Insight or Toshi might work, but for more custom ind= exing you have to roll your own software - this is where it actually become= s expensive.

Depending upon the query volume / lat= ency needs of the business, it may not make sense to bother administering b= itcoind instances, the indexing software, and its databases - using a third= party API will probably be more efficient.

- Jame= son

On= Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 1:50 PM, Gavin Andresen via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:

On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 12:30 PM= , Pieter Wuille via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.lin= uxfoundation.org> wrote:
If= the incentives for running a node don't weight up against the cost/dif= ficulty using a full node yourself for a majority of people in the ecosyste= m, I would argue that there is a problem. As Bitcoin's fundamental impr= ovement over other systems is the lack of need for trust, I believe that wi= th increased adoption should also come an increased (in absolute terms) inc= entive for people to use a full node. I'm seeing the opposite trend, an= d that is worrying IMHO.

Are you saying that u= nless the majority of people in the ecosystem decide to trust nothing but t= he 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 tradeoff= s in the past.

I believe people in the Bitcoin ecosystem will choose different tr= adeoffs, and I believe that is OK-- people should be free to make those tra= deoffs.

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 eve= n 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-wa= llet providers, but I bet there were an order of magnitude more people usin= g centralized services than running full nodes even back then), I firmly be= lieve that block size has very little to do with the decision to run a full= node or not.


--
--
Gavin Andresen


_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.= linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mail= man/listinfo/bitcoin-dev


--001a1134ce04299b31051cbc7be7--