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 BF3FC89D for ; Fri, 7 Aug 2015 17:09:31 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-io0-f182.google.com (mail-io0-f182.google.com [209.85.223.182]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1E0391E7 for ; Fri, 7 Aug 2015 17:09:31 +0000 (UTC) Received: by iodd187 with SMTP id d187so117740008iod.2 for ; Fri, 07 Aug 2015 10:09:30 -0700 (PDT) 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=TJH5o+xOuzymzA60BQihQrjr1/tOcbKilkIBTv4+7qE=; b=aUJ7QFhmCUMfjHAL0v1O63nKZH8lnZaYGpBF/BsEPEmRdpYt+x+2fb7XbbxO4rOgJh tfhe/TsnZ2a/1EsKY80u67wH06w2JxKbnhtOzeXKCbO3W1KLbCKR0zf7f7jj6c/8op4b +VsxAUeHcHXvK7e6XQShbWLCU/VmFv6/pZaWRvpzNFEA4+N+COgBFk8EnkUdcYTKMmSf NCBObK9sEWLbjrTrBmuFhKxCEOqn/p9cySZswylZtHf1n6QIWVN5BBCtLImeLuyLYVNS ZrOQLLDy59KdYp0t5K0vCpbIjGLtvDWU1Bd152/hMLKlFoNYzH+9xCwgp2hIILHg9jMV akqw== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.107.9.137 with SMTP id 9mr9400882ioj.50.1438967370612; Fri, 07 Aug 2015 10:09:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.36.77.201 with HTTP; Fri, 7 Aug 2015 10:09:30 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <3197878.6zmtLAPm4L@coldstorage> References: <1542978.eROxFinZd4@coldstorage> <3197878.6zmtLAPm4L@coldstorage> Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2015 19:09:30 +0200 Message-ID: From: Pieter Wuille To: Thomas Zander Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113f8f14f80471051cbbb2c8 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] 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 17:09:31 -0000 --001a113f8f14f80471051cbbb2c8 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 7:00 PM, Thomas Zander via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > > If the incentives for running a node don't weight up against the > > cost/difficulty using a full node yourself for a majority of people in > the > > ecosystem, I would argue that there is a problem. As Bitcoin's > fundamental > > improvement over other systems is the lack of need for trust, I believe > > that with increased adoption should also come an increased (in absolute > > terms) incentive for people to use a full node. I'm seeing the opposite > > trend, and that is worrying IMHO. > > And you do the same thing again; you dismiss the need factor. > Of course there is a need. It's the primary mechanism that keeps Bitcoin secure and immune from malicious influence. Of course not everyone needs to run a node. But that leaves the responsibility on us - the community - to help the situation by not making it too hard to run a node. And I see the block size as the primary way through which we do that. If the impact of the system goes us, so should the - joint - incentives to keep it secure. And I think we're (slowly) failing at that. -- Pieter --001a113f8f14f80471051cbbb2c8 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 7:00 PM, Thomas Zander via bitcoin-= dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> If the incentives for running= a node don't weight up against the
> cost/difficulty using a full node yourself for a majority of people in= the
> ecosystem, I would argue that there is a problem. As Bitcoin's fun= damental
> improvement over other systems is the lack of need for trust, I believ= e
> that with increased adoption should also come an increased (in absolut= e
> terms) incentive for people to use a full node. I'm seeing the opp= osite
> trend, and that is worrying IMHO.

And you do the same thing again; you dismiss the need factor.

Of course there is a need. It's the prima= ry mechanism that keeps Bitcoin secure and immune from malicious influence.=

Of course not everyone needs to run a node. But that lea= ves the responsibility on us - the community - to help the situation by not= making it too hard to run a node. And I see the block size as the primary = way through which we do that.

If the impact of the system= goes us, so should the - joint - incentives to keep it secure. And I think= we're (slowly) failing at that.

--
Pi= eter

--001a113f8f14f80471051cbbb2c8--