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 8DAE993D for ; Fri, 7 Aug 2015 22:53:46 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mout.perfora.net (mout.perfora.net [74.208.4.197]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2B5F7E8 for ; Fri, 7 Aug 2015 22:53:46 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-qk0-f172.google.com ([209.85.220.172]) by mrelay.perfora.net (mreueus001) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 0MHqjD-1ZOfzw0CWT-003b48 for ; Sat, 08 Aug 2015 00:53:45 +0200 Received: by qkdg63 with SMTP id g63so42094032qkd.0 for ; Fri, 07 Aug 2015 15:53:43 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.55.51.15 with SMTP id z15mr17856768qkz.86.1438988023852; Fri, 07 Aug 2015 15:53:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.96.226.68 with HTTP; Fri, 7 Aug 2015 15:53:43 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <2686935.vL4zPKxv2H@coldstorage> References: <3197878.6zmtLAPm4L@coldstorage> <2686935.vL4zPKxv2H@coldstorage> Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2015 23:53:43 +0100 Message-ID: From: Adam Back To: Thomas Zander Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:bxn0pYRC+FKPomHBYGWj4UNPtpJWoJfF74mgiKR/m9j7TWzpOTB iv4guD/n0g6QtVhVrhmKnVZ++qNDDrHV9D2zS5jDuZUZZZDmGGcLn2fJrjzn94ObzMVrwMV bxJlKmgTCHWTg6ojsHGgoEN5zR99+1C/vjnC4IvssARnUUzyxQZxStPoeWhf17RDfM3K9Bk 4cJT3w2Y0pz8dYFKOrUcA== X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V01:K0:NkZkqokQXRc=:GimjPAW3X6HjuKuMxOqHe0 GdfJSV6QstNrg2sx5Vmu5OfaaPLTHCj6gaKAmGqcT62ITf2OlGh0qfrE1JWz7R2EbBQnD3wT1 ULZmbHGdQ/0P0M7hYMp1RjIrz9c1TEBy5U1MoBU4Uc+bvxcafY+90VaYRACMuEYpbZWfyRNVu ba8aKMjVkhOsoPEBlVw4zstJhdlO1wY4TPVecMJITl7B/bVVbnya44lZbDdJEDZh5Px2w1WMc vepy7xYWeh4W6np3jQXN5nuoDWqQnLMNED9KJZwP8tEANGbRDNPBrpp+01wPCpOOsjcH0EMaT gxBPo70TauBEZ+DVZFsSI7ElOYDX2lFd3XC3d0WZstJhMBWBGI4kPTAZJKjbWsWgZEZFZVbJT aYPJU7rhCi2Ue7mSgoN+j5t+s4Z7LbIhI1KQ92GLNrReVjdVdZX7AhqOBpprHSBh73+eCdBm4 rLXqWxbs/MsMXYs0E1/qhGbKBvj3RaIAspr/KUoGCLSntvVxh2M6DMkagg6hDfYbU/oY7t+NH 1ZSHLgJWBIaxSCEQvrA4hUM0aktILYtWNsoF9jD5VZU2ZfH6XcHUiAJKkMbaP306+jV5umisS PDbg33Zyz/r85xnLPJhs7CIfYoQxwL1rFFjEnSt/L6j3+m8G6rruYUk9MPnYBJbgz3u1jc2XZ e49J+lTmD8tGJ25DDoPJkq4BGMXi52n9+TSuyvvvirz6puS2vllyEwv0h588rOx4iOs/X4v2M jnRk6FIyl1q0TSPn X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,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] Fwd: Block size following technological growth 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: Fri, 07 Aug 2015 22:53:46 -0000 On 7 August 2015 at 22:35, Thomas Zander via bitcoin-dev wrote: > the need an individual has for running a node is a completely different concept than the > need for nodes to exist. And, really, you are describing miners, not nodes. It's not as simple as trusting miners, Bitcoin security needs some reasonable portion of economic interest to be validating their receipt of coins against a full node they run. I do it myself because I dont want to lose money, as do many power users. Most bitcoin ecosystem companies do it. You dont have to run it all the time, just sync it when you want to check your own coin receipt with higher assurance. > As we concluded in our previous email, the need to run a node is inversely > proportional to the ability (or willingness) to trust others. Even if you are willing to trust others, trusting miners or random full nodes would be unsafe if not for the reasonable portion of economic interest validating their own received coins. That holds miners honest, otherwise they could more easily present fake information to SPV users. > And lets face it, practically everyone trusts others with their money today. Bitcoin's very reason for existence is to avoid that need. For people fully happy to trust others with their money, Bitcoin may not be as interesting to them. >> If the impact of the system goes u[p], so should the - joint - incentives to >> keep it secure. And I think we're (slowly) failing at that. > > That is your opinion. What Pieter said is an accurate summary and non-controversial. Adam