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 9AD39414 for ; Wed, 19 Apr 2017 13:47:52 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-io0-f182.google.com (mail-io0-f182.google.com [209.85.223.182]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7E4FC169 for ; Wed, 19 Apr 2017 13:47:51 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-io0-f182.google.com with SMTP id k87so22010754ioi.0 for ; Wed, 19 Apr 2017 06:47:51 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=FVVJV+BzICX1mo+zK9P7F2I8EmKMy3OauolcjzfRa9o=; b=M029VYuyf5QwI16FET2gCRFCsj/1RN5b42OyTSpr323nfg2aP0/ZaFs8pSwHK/Ib3P AgVPryPHqvkDX9liblzkxFOsJxsCNizONXHp83GvfCDxIcUQyzBkMZNkLg0XmqyWTZSq AgkId/LJw1Osfcpvqsx+AjmfmQS0ijcamtLHJ7QczQGT3768OjbIc94DEGsOi4frnv1l DOoH0lE5fz7qIaZMoksHDnbnGIZrR65FI0HzbK5kGK8WZog8G2ujaW4OILFV4MNClF+Q RCsdDO34D/ODTvz2Dk0W5/ON7fchd/G1EUV7N2Ri1fFXYkZRiCyiFuxOlohJn3tuUG/j 0itQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to; bh=FVVJV+BzICX1mo+zK9P7F2I8EmKMy3OauolcjzfRa9o=; b=tD7qAH+poa6zNy/Ojgy0Sf3aqI9yuH4lgvdZHzgrH/cemwYB1GUQB+xY+0MPxSPZQw xViws3liZdmdeVM/WTVGkbBc2OBNV/P4l5rw+B+Olp21xix1aYN9FirpBE/vNZRWR9NV RvhfIwxDFa/2DC3RvVkZWGkc4fDukesXte3SXFvED0q3scdlYBf5N0hNGP95yQolVFH8 ZZQOaMtEY8bdJnRG1iHhVbChBOY4NJPCfyP9L8mcYeWivHtGSKMDufUFAIP8wDk/aZD7 ovQnEmRAAJBiH5B7sItfW5Y/kCbFE5r35znRos+9ZNG+nOgC7jYxnbMO5wEqxm0znfJ8 KACw== X-Gm-Message-State: AN3rC/5GK4SEGw1kqR+zK1/g8TXwKwb6Gi4D4fXKFh0wwiJExWHfbbkd USmmVtjgubf1tqiY/MVQzoHYgDjH4Q== X-Received: by 10.107.163.140 with SMTP id m134mr3378221ioe.74.1492609670869; Wed, 19 Apr 2017 06:47:50 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <2226058.Q8lHjYE4Pt@strawberry> In-Reply-To: From: Angel Leon Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2017 13:47:40 +0000 Message-ID: To: udevNull , "bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11406f3c387b0a054d8545bc X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.5 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, FREEMAIL_FROM, HTML_MESSAGE, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE, RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM autolearn=no version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 19 Apr 2017 15:01:06 +0000 Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Small Nodes: A Better Alternative to Pruned Nodes X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2017 13:47:52 -0000 --001a11406f3c387b0a054d8545bc Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 >Financially incentivising nodes is a really weird area because it would allow someone to essentially automate the deployment of nodes. i.e. if a node can pay for itself 100% (even at a lesser value, it just becomes cheaper overall), you could write an application that uses an AWS API or a digital ocean API to automatically deploy 100's of nodes. Which sounds great but not if that person is malicious and wants to prevent the community adopting proposals. what other projects have done to avoid such attacks (while incentivizing economically running full nodes) is to only distribute part of the block rewards back such nodes if that node has committed/frozen a predetermined amount of coins that can't be spent. This also leaves less liquidity for market speculation and a incentives for long term commitments. On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 5:14 AM udevNull via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > I'd like to add to this. There is definitely a barrier of entry with > regards to setting up a full node. Unless you're living in a first world > country, the bandwidth requirements alone, will outright prevent you from > even setting up a full node (sync since genesis). > > To maintain that also becomes a sunk cost, as there is no financial > incentive to run a node, only an idealogical one. Most of the people who > benefit and will benefit from Bitcoin, are the un-banked. Which you will > find in 3rd world countries, that don't have ISPs that provide the data > packages, to cater for the requirements of running a full node. I'm sure > many would like to, but simply cannot afford it. > > A user may not want to run a node at home, but rather on a digital ocean > or AWS server, which they cannot afford to do either considering the > bandwidth and storage costs associated with it. However, I don't think they > should be excluded from participating in the network (supporting proposals, > voicing their opinions, running their own wallets, writing their own > applications on top of Bitcoin [which I think is extremely important]). > > So I would definitely be in favour of a small node of sorts. It will > present us with some interesting technical challenges along the way but > it's definitely worth while looking into. > > Financially incentivising nodes is a really weird area because it would > allow someone to essentially automate the deployment of nodes. i.e. if a > node can pay for itself 100% (even at a lesser value, it just becomes > cheaper overall), you could write an application that uses an AWS API or a > digital ocean API to automatically deploy 100's of nodes. Which sounds > great but not if that person is malicious and wants to prevent the > community adopting proposals. > Just my 2 cents worth. > > > Sent with ProtonMail Secure Email. > > _______________________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev > --001a11406f3c387b0a054d8545bc Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>Financially incent= ivising nodes is a really weird area because it would allow someone to esse= ntially automate the deployment of nodes. i.e. if a node can pay for itself= 100% (even at a lesser value, it just becomes cheaper overall), you could = write an application that uses an AWS API or a digital ocean API to automat= ically deploy 100's of nodes. Which sounds great but not if that person= is malicious and wants to prevent the community adopting proposals.=

what other projects have done to avoid such attacks (while incentiv= izing economically running full nodes) is to only distribute part of the bl= ock rewards back such nodes if that node has committed/frozen a predetermin= ed amount of coins that can't be spent. This also leaves less liquidity= for market speculation and a incentives for long term commitments.
On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 5:14 = AM udevNull via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:

I'd like to add to this. There is de= finitely a barrier of entry with regards to setting up a full node. Unless you're living in a first world country, the bandwidth requirements alone, will outright prevent you from even setting up a full node (sync since genesis).

To maintain that also becomes a sunk cost, as the= re is no financial incentive to run a node, only an idealogical one. Most of the people who benefit and will benefit from Bitcoin, are the un-banked. Which you will find in 3rd world countries, that don't have ISPs that provide the data packages, to cater for the requirements of running a full node. I'm sure many would like to, but simply cannot afford it.

A user may not want to run a n= ode at home, but rather on a digital ocean or AWS server, which they cannot afford to do either considering the bandwidth and storage costs associated with it. However, I don't think they should be excluded from participating in the network (supporting proposals, voicing their opinions, running their own wallets, writing their own applications on top of Bitcoin [which I think is extremely important]).

So I wo= uld definitely be in favour of a small node of sorts. It will present us wi= th some interesting technical challenges along the way but it's definitely worth while looking into.

Financially incentivising nodes is a really weird area because it would allow someone to essentially automate the deployment of nodes. i.e. if a node can pay for itself 100% (even at a lesser value, it just becomes cheaper overall), you could write an application that uses an AWS API or a digital ocean API to automatically deploy 100's of nodes. Which sounds great but not i= f that person is malicious and wants to prevent the community adopting proposals.

Just my 2 cents worth.
=

Sent with ProtonMail Secure Email.

_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
= bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mail= man/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
--001a11406f3c387b0a054d8545bc--