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 56086DD6 for ; Wed, 10 Feb 2016 06:14:15 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-vk0-f54.google.com (mail-vk0-f54.google.com [209.85.213.54]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C4DB0106 for ; Wed, 10 Feb 2016 06:14:14 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-vk0-f54.google.com with SMTP id c3so6570391vkb.3 for ; Tue, 09 Feb 2016 22:14:14 -0800 (PST) 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=ig8JCtV7KOlIqeRxpbgn6WSQaCvLefo10mnFY07kAgU=; b=vggM5efj4l5AevMOok6gVs0KzkLzF5Z4LpXh7Oh9a4F6ZWoimzooMNjI03/GC/YkuT sBP3X3LBQmOXWz0GRAz+9QQT72XX++/EFK4QV4GcsLXJLZcneVPb27xkz2S4xibbNuN3 98VtClH9aV4GVvlhI7S2wc5nL8Zd9rIQNNFsa/FSSJKh7n0NF5QO5+vs8PVzHou8P++9 lBRWF+cotOsO7ohBJo2UQt/HZr50ISLmFOzO1v8fK6JcLO5J4/jJp9fXXs+kLwiIcp8E 5AxE5uH/ga2Pj8Zf8QrBmFmsd2ROllnq2IjdaANRqGl5bEi2w2aBGYhiM8ajdLw02tFD tWgw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=ig8JCtV7KOlIqeRxpbgn6WSQaCvLefo10mnFY07kAgU=; b=YN8qjsZEIT3sQV40PzIVfypoqKQuFTmSzEuvGGrSxUxAX75wh+S2FhbmqbkqERHoUq gkWKUI+0utWE+dA12TPodOYTEC0okzN/8uzmcb7dW9u7C6r2gZdEBk/L94TVeHElv6h2 UxXfoc29QXmpeMa9v13o4BorZ8JbydDWWSzTyHISOSNWsfa5ZWTrUxLQUIKbmmCSPLHc hKWOTUXBoDGXq6u9UYIEVEa50H7zGIB9TBtFCZzQ7WxY6MpLPeaC5RbbZejvw+N+Pnqj zwhmY6AyS6Zwp5tqrZWLx3zHqelz59n9LAnvfM71417zSVu7ESxclM3kZjHH/t6C/xZT EBYw== X-Gm-Message-State: AG10YOQjr+meQddOZ9zWtxMmI0c5Vrz/InDLd558Voe35WAvKVjbZRkjDvGBVOBw+2mIFhz//nqOZ6lXBinxfQ== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.31.168.135 with SMTP id r129mr29255997vke.7.1455084853991; Tue, 09 Feb 2016 22:14:13 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.31.9.72 with HTTP; Tue, 9 Feb 2016 22:14:13 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <201602060012.26728.luke@dashjr.org> Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2016 01:14:13 -0500 Message-ID: From: David Vorick To: Gavin Andresen Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11414f94d720be052b645774 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] BIP proposal: Increase block size limit to 2 megabytes 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: Wed, 10 Feb 2016 06:14:15 -0000 --001a11414f94d720be052b645774 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 > I love seeing data! I was considering 0.10 nodes as 'unmaintained' because it has been a long time since the 0.11 release. https://packages.gentoo.org/packages/net-p2p/bitcoin-qt The Gentoo package manager still has 0.10.2 as the most recent stable version. Getting a later version of the software on a gentoo setup requires explicitly telling the package manger to grab a later version. I don't know what percent of nodes are Gentoo 0.10.2, but I think it's evidence that 0.10 should not be considered 'unmaintained'. People who update their software regularly will be running 0.10 on Gentoo. > many of whom have privately told me they are willing and able to run an extra node or three (or a hundred-and-eleven) once there is a final release. I'm not clear on the utility of more nodes. Perhaps there is significant concern about SPV nodes getting enough bandwidth or the network struggling from the load? Generally though, I believe that when people talk about the deteriorating full node count they are talking about a reduction in decentralization. Full nodes are a weak indicator of how likely something like a change in consensus rules is to get caught, or how many people you would need to open communication with / extort in order to be able to force rules upon the network. Having a person spin up multiple nodes doesn't address either of those concerns, which in my understanding is what most people care about. My personal concern is with the percentage of the economy that is dependent on trusting the full nodes they are connected to, and the overall integrity of that trust. (IE how likely is it that my SPV node is going to lie to me about whether or not I've received a payment). I will also point out that lots of people will promise things when they are seeking political change. I don't know what percentage of promised nodes would actually be spun up, but I'm guessing that it's going to be significantly less than 100%. I have similar fears for companies that claim they have tested their infrastructure for supporting 2MB blocks. Talk is cheap. --001a11414f94d720be052b645774 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>=C2=A0 I love seeing data!=C2=A0 I was considering 0.1= 0 nodes as 'unmaintained' because it has been a long time since the= 0.11 release.

https://packages.gentoo.org/packa= ges/net-p2p/bitcoin-qt

The Gent= oo package manager still has 0.10.2 as the most recent stable version. Gett= ing a later version of the software on a gentoo setup requires explicitly t= elling the package manger to grab a later version. I don't know what pe= rcent of nodes are Gentoo 0.10.2, but I think it's evidence that 0.10 s= hould not be considered 'unmaintained'. People who update their sof= tware regularly will be running 0.10 on Gentoo.

> many of whom h= ave privately told me they are willing and able to=20 run an extra node or three (or a hundred-and-eleven) once there is a=20 final release.

I'm not clear on the utility of more = nodes. Perhaps there is significant concern about SPV nodes getting enough = bandwidth or the network struggling from the load? Generally though, I beli= eve that when people talk about the deteriorating full node count they are = talking about a reduction in decentralization. Full nodes are a weak indica= tor of how likely something like a change in consensus rules is to get caug= ht, or how many people you would need to open communication with / extort i= n order to be able to force rules upon the network. Having a person spin up= multiple nodes doesn't address either of those concerns, which in my u= nderstanding is what most people care about. My personal concern is with th= e percentage of the economy that is dependent on trusting the full nodes th= ey are connected to, and the overall integrity of that trust. (IE how likel= y is it that my SPV node is going to lie to me about whether or not I'v= e received a payment).

I will also point out that lots of= people will promise things when they are seeking political change. I don&#= 39;t know what percentage of promised nodes would actually be spun up, but = I'm guessing that it's going to be significantly less than 100%. I = have similar fears for companies that claim they have tested their infrastr= ucture for supporting 2MB blocks. Talk is cheap.
--001a11414f94d720be052b645774--