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-4.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1YWY03-0000s8-UB for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Fri, 13 Mar 2015 22:24:11 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com designates 209.85.223.174 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.223.174; envelope-from=mh.in.england@gmail.com; helo=mail-ie0-f174.google.com; Received: from mail-ie0-f174.google.com ([209.85.223.174]) by sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1YWY02-0001I5-P4 for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Fri, 13 Mar 2015 22:24:11 +0000 Received: by iegc3 with SMTP id c3so133156042ieg.3 for ; Fri, 13 Mar 2015 15:24:05 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.50.79.230 with SMTP id m6mr87478704igx.33.1426285445499; Fri, 13 Mar 2015 15:24:05 -0700 (PDT) Sender: mh.in.england@gmail.com Received: by 10.36.54.147 with HTTP; Fri, 13 Mar 2015 15:24:05 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <550361CC.7080401@localhost.local> References: <55034205.4030607@localhost.local> <55035EAC.80201@localhost.local> <550361CC.7080401@localhost.local> Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2015 15:24:05 -0700 X-Google-Sender-Auth: IZ8MK8Ee00IjimYhxSwwWiQKHis Message-ID: From: Mike Hearn To: Justus Ranvier Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e01229aaa53f4a6051132f56f X-Spam-Score: -0.5 (/) 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 (mh.in.england[at]gmail.com) -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record 1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message 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 X-Headers-End: 1YWY02-0001I5-P4 Cc: Bitcoin Dev Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Criminal complaints against "network disruption as a service" startups 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: Fri, 13 Mar 2015 22:24:12 -0000 --089e01229aaa53f4a6051132f56f Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 > > Don't SPV clients announce their intentions by the act of uploading a > filter? > Well they don't set NODE_NETWORK, so they don't claim to be providing network services. But then I guess the Chainalysis nodes could easily just clear that bit flag too. > What I'd actually like to see is for network users to pay for the node > resources that they consume It's not quite pay-as-you-go, but I just posted a scheme for funding of network resources using crowdfunding contracts here: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/5783#issuecomment-79460064 That comment doesn't have any kind of provision for access control, but group signatures could be extended in both directions: the server proves it was a part of the group that was funded by the contract, and the client proves it was in group that funded the contract, but it's done in a (relatively) anonymous way. Then any client can use any node it funded, or at least, buy priority access. But it's rather complicated. I'd hope that nodes can be like email accounts: yes they have a cost but in practice people everyone gets one for free because of random commercial cross-subsidisation, self hosting and other things. --089e01229aaa53f4a6051132f56f Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Don't SPV clients announce their intentions by the act of = uploading a
filter?

Well they don't set NODE_NE= TWORK, so they don't claim to be providing network services. But then I= guess the Chainalysis nodes could easily just clear that bit flag too.=C2= =A0
=C2=A0
What I'd actually like to se= e is for network users to pay for the node
resources that they consume

It's not qu= ite pay-as-you-go, but I just posted a scheme for funding of network resour= ces using crowdfunding contracts here:


That comment doesn't have any kind of provision for a= ccess control, but group signatures could be extended in both directions: t= he server proves it was a part of the group that was funded by the contract= , and the client proves it was in group that funded the contract, but it= 9;s done in a (relatively) anonymous way. Then any client can use any node = it funded, or at least, buy priority access.

But i= t's rather complicated. I'd hope that nodes can be like email accou= nts: yes they have a cost but in practice people everyone gets one for free= because of random commercial cross-subsidisation, self hosting and other t= hings.
--089e01229aaa53f4a6051132f56f--