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 022478D5 for ; Thu, 6 Aug 2015 18:52:30 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-ig0-f181.google.com (mail-ig0-f181.google.com [209.85.213.181]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 95491179 for ; Thu, 6 Aug 2015 18:52:29 +0000 (UTC) Received: by igbpg9 with SMTP id pg9so17575764igb.0 for ; Thu, 06 Aug 2015 11:52:29 -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=KdoUIddzmc64r7ynHXtzbdKlW2HGs+x6CC101ljMa6s=; b=QbEQKZ61q+66bsglKe9ntvOyg1DoxDpJ3J94DEvkszRkp4c0IdaAMqHoJPbPAeTnBM XdBPYP7+/6pGoLwlMME3FTLtiDQMC0+YsDNvg9Y3fZzWxhe0iHTNVbKCo346ES8xtz7m 5ldxrOiLWY9wu4IWl0ROGnMQu/ne43Q5Qn5JZYwk1h0oohIWKVUz4JDzypQdDJXRq2gs T2E5JbHIiPlxEsVau/yxkBoYL0Ug2skyMj4nSvhxM1XqYVvpaeX5C3MyoxZk6N/f1WXz NFE+zgkXaehoPoiJezSbqMzVq6OZk9+wvZLBOeMAC5VFdZcNS8GZQJBOOj4ixnQ2fH+L 4q/A== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.50.93.69 with SMTP id cs5mr3124932igb.4.1438887148996; Thu, 06 Aug 2015 11:52:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.36.77.201 with HTTP; Thu, 6 Aug 2015 11:52:28 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Thu, 6 Aug 2015 20:52:28 +0200 Message-ID: From: Pieter Wuille To: Michael Naber Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e01537ed8634fab051ca905b5 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: Thu, 06 Aug 2015 18:52:30 -0000 --089e01537ed8634fab051ca905b5 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 8:43 PM, Michael Naber wrote: > How many nodes are necessary to ensure sufficient network reliability? > Ten, a hundred, a thousand? At what point do we hit the point of > diminishing returns, where adding extra nodes starts to have negligible > impact on the overall reliability of the system? > It's not about reliability. There are plenty of nodes currently for synchronization and other network functions. It's about reduction of trust. Running a full node and using it verify your transactions is how you get personal assurance that everyone on the network is following the rules. And if you don't do so yourself, the knowledge that others are using full nodes and relying on them is valuable. Someone just running 1000 nodes in a data center and not using them for anything does not do anything for this, it's adding network capacity without use. That doesn't mean that the full node count (or the reachable full node count even) are meaningless numbers. They are an indication of how hard it is (for various reasons) to run/use a full node, and thus provide feedback. But they are not the goal, just an indicator. -- Pieter --089e01537ed8634fab051ca905b5 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 8:43 PM, Michael Naber <mickeybo= b@gmail.com> wrote:
How many n= odes are necessary to ensure sufficient network reliability? Ten, a hundred= , a thousand? At what point do we hit the point of diminishing returns, whe= re adding extra nodes starts to have negligible impact on the overall relia= bility of the system?=C2=A0

It's = not about reliability. There are plenty of nodes currently for synchronizat= ion and other network functions.

It's about reduction= of trust. Running a full node and using it verify your transactions is how= you get personal assurance that everyone on the network is following the r= ules. And if you don't do so yourself, the knowledge that others are us= ing full nodes and relying on them is valuable. Someone just running 1000 n= odes in a data center and not using them for anything does not do anything = for this, it's adding network capacity without use.

T= hat doesn't mean that the full node count (or the reachable full node c= ount even) are meaningless numbers. They are an indication of how hard it i= s (for various reasons) to run/use a full node, and thus provide feedback. = But they are not the goal, just an indicator.

--
Piet= er

--089e01537ed8634fab051ca905b5--