Gregory Maxwell [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2015-07-29 📝 Original message:On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at ...
📅 Original date posted:2015-07-29
📝 Original message:On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 9:59 AM, Mike Hearn via bitcoin-dev
<bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> I do love history lessons from people who weren't actually there.
I doubt the rest of us really enjoy hearing these "lessons" from from
you where you wildly distort history to reflect your views.
> Satoshi explicitly envisioned a future where only miners ran nodes, so it
> had nothing to do with this either.
As others have pointed out-- even if this were true, --- so what?
Many errors were made early on in Bitcoin.
But in this case it's not actually true and I'm really getting fed up
with this continued self-appointment of all that the creator of the
system thought. Your position and knoweldge is not special or
priveleged compared to many of the people that you are arguing with.
It was _well_ understood while the creator of the system was around
that putting every consensus decision into the world into one system
would not scale; and also understood that the users of Bitcoin would
wish to protect its decenteralization by limiting the size of the
chain to keep it verifyable on small devices.
Don't think you can claim otherwise, because doing so is flat out wrong.
In the above statement you're outright backwards-- there was a clear
expectation that all who ran nodes would mine. The delegation of
consensus to third parties was unforseen. Presumably Bitcoin core
making mining inaccessable to users in software was also unforseen.
> Validators validate for themselves. Calculating a local UTXO set and then
> not using it for anything doesn't help anyone. SPV wallets need filtering
> and serving capability, but a computer can filter and serve the chain
> without validating it.
>
> The only purposes non-mining, non-rpc-serving, non-Qt-wallet-sustaining full
> nodes are needed for with today's network are:
[...]
> Outside of serving lightweight P2P wallets there's no purpose in running a
> P2P node if you aren't mining, or using it as a **trusted node for your own
> operations**.
You wrote a long list of activities that are actually irrelevant to
many node users with the result of burrying the main reason any party
should be running a node (emphasis mine).
The incentives of the system demand as it exist today that many other
economically significant parties run nodes in order to keep the half
dozen miners from having a blank check to do whatever they want
(including supporting their operations through inflation)-- do not
think they wouldn't, as we've seen their happy to skip verification
entirely.
(Which, incidentially, is insanely toxic to any security argument for
SPV; ---- and now we see the market failure that results from your and
Gavin years long campaign to ignore problems in the mining ecosystem:
The SPV model which you've fixated on as the true nature of bitcoin
has been demonstrated in practice to have a potentially empty security
claim.)
> Miners who don't validate have a habit of bleeding money: that's the
> system working as designed.
The information I have currently is that the parties engaging in that
activity found it to be tremendously profitable, even including losses
from issues.
📝 Original message:On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 9:59 AM, Mike Hearn via bitcoin-dev
<bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> I do love history lessons from people who weren't actually there.
I doubt the rest of us really enjoy hearing these "lessons" from from
you where you wildly distort history to reflect your views.
> Satoshi explicitly envisioned a future where only miners ran nodes, so it
> had nothing to do with this either.
As others have pointed out-- even if this were true, --- so what?
Many errors were made early on in Bitcoin.
But in this case it's not actually true and I'm really getting fed up
with this continued self-appointment of all that the creator of the
system thought. Your position and knoweldge is not special or
priveleged compared to many of the people that you are arguing with.
It was _well_ understood while the creator of the system was around
that putting every consensus decision into the world into one system
would not scale; and also understood that the users of Bitcoin would
wish to protect its decenteralization by limiting the size of the
chain to keep it verifyable on small devices.
Don't think you can claim otherwise, because doing so is flat out wrong.
In the above statement you're outright backwards-- there was a clear
expectation that all who ran nodes would mine. The delegation of
consensus to third parties was unforseen. Presumably Bitcoin core
making mining inaccessable to users in software was also unforseen.
> Validators validate for themselves. Calculating a local UTXO set and then
> not using it for anything doesn't help anyone. SPV wallets need filtering
> and serving capability, but a computer can filter and serve the chain
> without validating it.
>
> The only purposes non-mining, non-rpc-serving, non-Qt-wallet-sustaining full
> nodes are needed for with today's network are:
[...]
> Outside of serving lightweight P2P wallets there's no purpose in running a
> P2P node if you aren't mining, or using it as a **trusted node for your own
> operations**.
You wrote a long list of activities that are actually irrelevant to
many node users with the result of burrying the main reason any party
should be running a node (emphasis mine).
The incentives of the system demand as it exist today that many other
economically significant parties run nodes in order to keep the half
dozen miners from having a blank check to do whatever they want
(including supporting their operations through inflation)-- do not
think they wouldn't, as we've seen their happy to skip verification
entirely.
(Which, incidentially, is insanely toxic to any security argument for
SPV; ---- and now we see the market failure that results from your and
Gavin years long campaign to ignore problems in the mining ecosystem:
The SPV model which you've fixated on as the true nature of bitcoin
has been demonstrated in practice to have a potentially empty security
claim.)
> Miners who don't validate have a habit of bleeding money: that's the
> system working as designed.
The information I have currently is that the parties engaging in that
activity found it to be tremendously profitable, even including losses
from issues.