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 9B038895 for ; Fri, 7 Aug 2015 16:30:31 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-ig0-f173.google.com (mail-ig0-f173.google.com [209.85.213.173]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C3ADC14B for ; Fri, 7 Aug 2015 16:30:29 +0000 (UTC) Received: by igk11 with SMTP id 11so34993967igk.1 for ; Fri, 07 Aug 2015 09:30:29 -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=j7YtBs6PuW3PRG9dKwep8/YCbROC08wW8rlsAiKmZw0=; b=zIwMN/ofTU+xux++6eCDv4lZa4OZVfPsgzqD0+t20q89TNbgWbr1YHBUYACEy6+7zv vtJUIHV7gsrl1vEhRiKCSz67lDbxqRhYoWgkbNJ8i2+uxdDPphACMGU3bbG4asfElLYk NeDIiB0v6RC3e3ndYmvj2wmE/ZLShm0oEf6AT1eNXWDwHbgsTYauT4LfOwEWuVncok4h sLvGn8aV68qAckoSvV+AYniswiuEST1a/4P3DNrDggYYAs4KmbP1D5PxE3MLo8WGsnWt pyE06kUnZWglKFNI9XRYApSVDi0G16dcH/Bgb2w3AnRg76L0nf8/0vgb9LqO6OwXWkP9 vvfQ== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.50.117.65 with SMTP id kc1mr3796180igb.94.1438965029157; Fri, 07 Aug 2015 09:30:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.36.77.201 with HTTP; Fri, 7 Aug 2015 09:30:28 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <1542978.eROxFinZd4@coldstorage> References: <1542978.eROxFinZd4@coldstorage> Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2015 18:30:28 +0200 Message-ID: From: Pieter Wuille To: Thomas Zander Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e0118271e684054051cbb275f 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 16:30:31 -0000 --089e0118271e684054051cbb275f Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 6:06 PM, Thomas Zander via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > You make a logical fallacy; > > I would agree that nodes are there for people to stop trusting someone that > they have no trust-relationship with. > Yay, trust! > But your conclusion that low node count is an indication that its hard to > run > one discards your own point. You forget the point that running a node is > only > needed if you don't know anyone you can trust to run it for you. I'm > pretty > darn sure that this will have a bigger effect on nodecount than how hard it > is. > I never said it is the only factor that influences node count. Or, in other words, without a need to run a node you can't judge the > difficulty of why there aren't more running. > 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. -- Pieter --089e0118271e684054051cbb275f Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On F= ri, Aug 7, 2015 at 6:06 PM, Thomas Zander via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
You make a logical fallacy;

I would agree that nodes are there for people to stop trusting someone that=
they have no trust-relationship with.

Y= ay, trust!
=C2=A0
But your conclusion that low node count is an indication that its hard to r= un
one discards your own point.=C2=A0 You forget the point that running a node= is only
needed if you don't know anyone you can trust to run it for you.=C2=A0 = I'm pretty
darn sure that this will have a bigger effect on nodecount than how hard it=
is.

I never said it is the only factor = that influences node count.

Or, in other words, without a need to run a node you can't judge the difficulty of why there aren't more running.

<= /div>
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 fund= amental improvement over other systems is the lack of need for trust, I bel= ieve 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 opposi= te trend, and that is worrying IMHO.

--
Pieter
--089e0118271e684054051cbb275f--