Re: [bitcoin-dev] A compromise between BIP101 and Pieter's proposal

["G. Andrew Stone" <g.andrew.stone@gmail.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2989 bytes --]

There's a large array of solutions that are bigger than the cheapest home
broadband, but smaller then renting hardware in a data center.  Every
company with internet service to their location purchases one of these
options.  If Bitcoin full node bandwidth requirements ever exceed a
hobbyist's reach, s/he can always pool resources with other individuals to
purchase one of these solutions, and a 1-room office.

How many of you have connected to multiple ISPs and are routing internet
traffic between them?  But TCP is still permissionless.

Bitcoin node requirements will grow beyond a hobbyist reach (but not that
of the garage entrepreneur).   The truth is that as technologies grow and
mature, the hobbyists move on but anyone who has a real reason to continue
using it stays.  This fact does not destroy its decentralization.

I do not think that reasonable scaling will significantly affect full node
quantity (historical downtrends are conflated with the simultaneous
transition from hobbyist to professional).

At the same time the ability to create an independent full node is a
tremendous force keeping existing full nodes honest -- this potential is
more powerful then the fact.

Which would you choose, a 10 thousand node strong bankCoin, or a 1000 node
open source permissionless Bitcoin?


On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 12:22 PM, Dave Scotese via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:

> Here are some books that will help more people understand why Adam's
> concern is important:
> Kicking the Dragon (by Larken Rose)
> The State (by Franz Oppenheimer)
>
> Like he said, it isn't much about bitcoin.  Our crypto is just one of the
> defenses we've created, and understanding what it defends will help us
> maintain its value.
>
> Dave
>
> On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 6:16 AM, Adam Back via bitcoin-dev <
>> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>>
>> I think trust the data-center logic obviously fails, and I was talking
>> about this scenario in the post you are replying to.  You are trusting the
>> data-center operator period.  If one could trust data-centers to run
>> verified code, to not get hacked, filter traffic, respond to court orders
>> without notifying you etc that would be great but that's unfortunately not
>> what happens.
>>
>> Data-center operators are bound to follow laws, including NSLs and gag
>> orders.  They also get hacked, employ humans who can be corrupt,
>> blackmailed, and themselves centralisation points for policy attack.
>> Snowden related disclosures and keeping aware of security show this is very
>> real.
>>
>> This isn't much about bitcoin even, its just security reality for hosting
>> anything intended to be secure via decentralisation, or just hosting in
>> general while at risk of political or policy attack.
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 4063 bytes --]