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 D4EADA48 for ; Fri, 31 Mar 2017 16:14:45 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-wm0-f42.google.com (mail-wm0-f42.google.com [74.125.82.42]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4E6B4176 for ; Fri, 31 Mar 2017 16:14:45 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-wm0-f42.google.com with SMTP id t189so2802984wmt.1 for ; Fri, 31 Mar 2017 09:14:45 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=DqFbChLvowI3oLEI1xHebTSSjfdQFjogfM4zL6A5gg4=; b=bTsD8uNHPw19XNW+2WmS5Xvlb+OSwoRwXX18LlT0C75/BbPfX+cZSea9z5maYSSMNQ 52BNVuD2KP0jwHoLUSfsNp6IDBNbFkwrKxYd38GM/4bfqJTKcBQXNrbdE/bDDMlqo96K EIrGMLtYcaLOD/2tsi9Wq9REP1rfIGGYfRkPWfxPFiMi5Nc5+MvotOUUFmKh/OrAKKFD jMOx4aSDRUwDpg7Gj/57SNpmwm4Snl1Go7hG7tkKuky2V2wX1YmNdh4q42hCwBYOyW2L elYUfeDy1/idMeKaCqXORdArv3ZNjtiOX7IQBtR8qihrcj45fFlYJJYZw8/9dTgLH6pE xHdQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=DqFbChLvowI3oLEI1xHebTSSjfdQFjogfM4zL6A5gg4=; b=Kj5MFbzYp6jHmaI3cUdsqrDxhuEl5R+7VlQOMmmxpV6UZFJ/n9FZFVFm4na7Ta9ZWR WQkTp11o0+wKO9kL5si8bq8kTRAQoosFgUJ8QXZQ3SC5fYfQfGvn8EopIkBI0/iFbN31 so/wE4EaRtI7nhiogtu5QCTbx+jUZ1vGfoyLmHwbDf3NKCdVWRHd4e4tCitJGizrVV3W VEuLgB956p3Fxrk5zCgHYTBgwRkoBP2aXGz3fS3UFDXoD1TSiJCbgCq19e/3wUxuFfRK zc7u5AQbHwoS5m56sECvOLqmglIn2rcZ2gwCYkrDCORofCa3Sa4Ou5RVXvamAGXCpVZk A5Cw== X-Gm-Message-State: AFeK/H3e4BSc94xC8q0C1fIlQIu1C1ndBNA02oJypDGQKqL9DD4CkMlcl1FS39W9BAnjA+W8EKF1UXU0uZ6MEQ== X-Received: by 10.28.139.134 with SMTP id n128mr3904457wmd.132.1490976883672; Fri, 31 Mar 2017 09:14:43 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.28.55.9 with HTTP; Fri, 31 Mar 2017 09:14:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.28.55.9 with HTTP; Fri, 31 Mar 2017 09:14:42 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: From: David Vorick Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2017 12:14:42 -0400 Message-ID: To: Jared Lee Richardson Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11441e4a850d38054c091be4 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.0 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, FREEMAIL_FROM, HTML_MESSAGE, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE 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] Hard fork proposal from last week's meeting 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: Fri, 31 Mar 2017 16:14:45 -0000 --001a11441e4a850d38054c091be4 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 No one is suggesting anything like this. The cost of running a node that could handle 300% of the 2015 worldwide nonbitcoin transaction volume today would be a rounding error for most exchanges even if prices didn't rise. Then explain why PayPal has multiple datacenters. And why Visa has multiple datacenters. And why the banking systems have multiple datacenters each. I'm guessing it's because you need that much juice to run a global payment system at the transaction volumes that they run at. Unless you have professional experience working directly with transaction processors handling tens of millions of financial transactions per day, I think we can fully discount your assessment that it would be a rounding error in the budget of a major exchange or Bitcoin processor to handle that much load. And even if it was, it wouldn't matter because it's extremely important to Bitcoin's security that it's everyday users are able to and are actively running full nodes. I'm not going to take the time to refute everything you've been saying but I will say that most of your comments have demonstrated a similar level of ignorance as the one above. This whole thread has been absurdly low quality. --001a11441e4a850d38054c091be4 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
No one is sug= gesting anything like this.=C2=A0 The cost of running a node
that could handle 300% of the 2015 worldwide nonbitcoin transaction
volume today would be a rounding error for most exchanges even if
prices didn't rise.

Then explain why PayPal has multiple datacenters. And wh= y Visa has multiple datacenters. And why the banking systems have multiple = datacenters each.

I'= m guessing it's because you need that much juice to run a global paymen= t system at the transaction volumes that they run at.

Unless you have professional experience worki= ng directly with transaction processors handling tens of millions of financ= ial transactions per day, I think we can fully discount your assessment tha= t it would be a rounding error in the budget of a major exchange or Bitcoin= processor to handle that much load. And even if it was, it wouldn't ma= tter because it's extremely important to Bitcoin's security that it= 's everyday users are able to and are actively running full nodes.

I'm not going to take th= e time to refute everything you've been saying but I will say that most= of your comments have demonstrated a similar level of ignorance as the one= above.

This whole threa= d has been absurdly low quality.
--001a11441e4a850d38054c091be4--