Gavin Andresen [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2015-08-07 📝 Original message:On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at ...
📅 Original date posted:2015-08-07
📝 Original message:On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 12:30 PM, Pieter Wuille via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev at 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.
Are you saying that unless the majority of people in the ecosystem decide
to trust nothing but the genesis block hash (decide to run a full node)
there is a problem?
If so, then we do have a fundamental difference of opinion, but I've
misunderstood how you think about trust/centralization/convenience
tradeoffs in the past.
I believe people in the Bitcoin ecosystem will choose different tradeoffs,
and I believe that is OK-- people should be free to make those tradeoffs.
And given that the majority of people in the ecosystem were deciding that
using a centralized service or an SPV-level-security wallet was better even
two or three years ago when blocks were tiny (I'd have to go back and dig
up number-of-full-nodes and number-of-active-wallets at the big web-wallet
providers, but I bet there were an order of magnitude more people using
centralized services than running full nodes even back then), I firmly
believe that block size has very little to do with the decision to run a
full node or not.
--
--
Gavin Andresen
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150807/1aaa747d/attachment.html>;
📝 Original message:On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 12:30 PM, Pieter Wuille via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev at 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.
Are you saying that unless the majority of people in the ecosystem decide
to trust nothing but the genesis block hash (decide to run a full node)
there is a problem?
If so, then we do have a fundamental difference of opinion, but I've
misunderstood how you think about trust/centralization/convenience
tradeoffs in the past.
I believe people in the Bitcoin ecosystem will choose different tradeoffs,
and I believe that is OK-- people should be free to make those tradeoffs.
And given that the majority of people in the ecosystem were deciding that
using a centralized service or an SPV-level-security wallet was better even
two or three years ago when blocks were tiny (I'd have to go back and dig
up number-of-full-nodes and number-of-active-wallets at the big web-wallet
providers, but I bet there were an order of magnitude more people using
centralized services than running full nodes even back then), I firmly
believe that block size has very little to do with the decision to run a
full node or not.
--
--
Gavin Andresen
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150807/1aaa747d/attachment.html>;