From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.193] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-1.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1Z4ht5-000191-8F for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Tue, 16 Jun 2015 03:50:11 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com designates 74.125.82.43 as permitted sender) client-ip=74.125.82.43; envelope-from=kgreenek@gmail.com; helo=mail-wg0-f43.google.com; Received: from mail-wg0-f43.google.com ([74.125.82.43]) by sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1Z4ht4-0005SN-Aw for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Tue, 16 Jun 2015 03:50:11 +0000 Received: by wgzl5 with SMTP id l5so2920431wgz.3 for ; Mon, 15 Jun 2015 20:50:04 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.180.187.41 with SMTP id fp9mr1893925wic.67.1434426604355; Mon, 15 Jun 2015 20:50:04 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.27.20.1 with HTTP; Mon, 15 Jun 2015 20:49:43 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <201506160341.10994.luke@dashjr.org> References: <201506160341.10994.luke@dashjr.org> From: Kevin Greene Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2015 20:49:43 -0700 Message-ID: To: Luke Dashjr Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c3844c3585cb05189a78f1 X-Spam-Score: -0.1 (/) 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 (kgreenek[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 0.5 AWL AWL: Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address X-Headers-End: 1Z4ht4-0005SN-Aw 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 03:50:11 -0000 --001a11c3844c3585cb05189a78f1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 8:41 PM, Luke Dashjr wrote: > On Tuesday, June 16, 2015 3:30:44 AM Kevin Greene wrote: > > Would SPV wallets have to pay to connect to the network too? From the > > user's perspective, it would be somewhat upsetting (and confusing) to s= ee > > your balance slowly draining every time you open your wallet app. It > would > > also tie up outputs every time you open up your wallet. You may go to p= ay > > for something in a coffee shop, only to find that you can't spend your > > bitcoin because the wallet had to create a transaction to pay to sync > with > > the network. > > > > Also, users of centralized wallet services like Coinbase would not have > to > > pay that fee; but users of native wallets like breadwallet would have n= o > > such option. This incentivizes users to use centralized wallets. > > > > So this is kind of imposing a worse user experience on users who want t= o > > use bitcoin the "right" way. That doesn't seem like a good thing to me = :/ > > SPV isn't the "right" way either ;) > =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. > > If you're running a full node (the real "right way"), you should be able = to > earn more bitcoins than you pay out. > > Luke > --001a11c3844c3585cb05189a78f1 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<= /div>

On Mon, Jun = 15, 2015 at 8:41 PM, Luke Dashjr <luke@dashjr.org> wrote:
<= blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px= #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">On Tuesday, June 16, 2015 3:= 30:44 AM Kevin Greene wrote:
> Would SPV wallets have to pay to connect to the network too? From the<= br> > user's perspective, it would be somewhat upsetting (and confusing)= to see
> your balance slowly draining every time you open your wallet app. It w= ould
> also tie up outputs every time you open up your wallet. You may go to = pay
> for something in a coffee shop, only to find that you can't spend = your
> bitcoin because the wallet had to create a transaction to pay to sync = with
> the network.
>
> Also, users of centralized wallet services like Coinbase would not hav= e to
> pay that fee; but users of native wallets like breadwallet would have = no
> such option. This incentivizes users to use centralized wallets.
>
> So this is kind of imposing a worse user experience on users who want = to
> use bitcoin the "right" way. That doesn't seem like a go= od thing to me :/

SPV isn't the "right" way either ;)

=E2=80=8BHah, fair enough, there is no such thing as the "right&qu= ot; way to do anything. But I still think punishing users who use SPV walle= ts 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 experi= ence for mobile wallets a little more confusing and annoying.
=C2=A0

If you're running a full node (the real "right way"), you sho= uld be able to
earn more bitcoins than you pay out.

Luke

--001a11c3844c3585cb05189a78f1--