From: Isidor Zeuner <cryptocurrencies@quidecco•de>
To: Mike Hearn <mike@plan99•net>
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists•sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Why are we bleeding nodes?
Date: Tue, 20 May 2014 20:38:15 +0200 (CEST) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20140520183815.2A186DF7279@quidecco.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CANEZrP2bbFordbKdTWnMuCx0yQpL1D5-=_mK6VXPGB9ogDLDDw@mail.gmail.com>
> >
> > In my opinion, the number of full nodes doesn't matter (as long as
> > it's enough to satisfy demand by other nodes).
> >
>
> Correct. Still, a high number of nodes has a few other benefits:
>
> 1) The more nodes there are, the cheaper it should be to run each one,
> given that the bandwidth and CPU for serving the chain will be spread over
> more people.
>
> 2) It makes Bitcoin *seem* bigger, more robust and more decentralised,
> because there are more people uniting to run it. So there's a psychological
> benefit.
>
Psychological benefit vs. effective benefit involves the danger of
destroying trust in the Bitcoin network when there are hard facts for
non-robustness while the node number looks big. Therefore, it may make
sense to establish better metrics.
> Also, we don't have a good way to measure capacity vs demand at the moment.
> Whether we have enough capacity is rather a shot in the dark right now.
>
>
> > What matters is how hard it is to run one.
> >
>
> Which is why I'm interested to learn the reason behind the drop. Is it
> insufficient interest, or is running a node too painful?
>
> For this purpose I'd like to exclude people running Bitcoin Core on laptops
> or non-dedicated desktops. I don't think full nodes will ever make sense
> for consumer wallets again, and I see the bleeding off of those people as
> natural and expected (as Satoshi did). But if someone feels it's too hard
> to run on a cheap server then that'd concern me.
>
In my opinion, the characteristic of being able to make use of
non-dedicated nodes should be regarded as an advantage of the Bitcoin
protocol, and not something to get rid of. Nodes being able to
contribute this way may lead to even more robustness than
decentralization alone, as they can do so without exposing a fixed
address which could be attacked.
Best regards,
Isidor
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-05-20 19:34 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 70+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-04-07 11:34 Mike Hearn
2014-04-07 12:17 ` Ricardo Filipe
2014-04-07 13:43 ` Andreas Schildbach
2014-04-07 14:05 ` Mike Hearn
2014-04-07 14:15 ` Eric Martindale
2014-04-07 14:23 ` Mike Hearn
2014-04-07 19:46 ` Troy Benjegerdes
2014-04-08 3:13 ` kjj
2014-04-08 7:50 ` Mike Hearn
2014-04-09 10:38 ` Wendell
2014-04-09 11:15 ` Wladimir
2014-04-07 14:45 ` Tom Harding
2014-04-07 12:19 ` Jameson Lopp
2014-04-07 12:26 ` Pieter Wuille
2014-04-07 12:34 ` Mike Hearn
2014-04-07 12:34 ` Jameson Lopp
2014-05-20 18:38 ` Isidor Zeuner [this message]
2014-04-07 13:50 ` Gregory Maxwell
2014-04-07 13:53 ` Gregory Maxwell
2014-04-07 13:58 ` Jameson Lopp
2014-04-07 14:04 ` Gregory Maxwell
2014-04-08 11:28 ` Jesus Cea
2014-04-07 15:45 ` Justus Ranvier
2014-04-07 15:53 ` Gregory Maxwell
2014-04-07 16:02 ` Jameson Lopp
2014-04-07 16:27 ` Mark Friedenbach
2014-04-07 16:57 ` Gregory Maxwell
2014-04-07 17:01 ` Mark Friedenbach
2014-04-07 17:16 ` Gregory Maxwell
2014-04-07 17:35 ` Brent Shambaugh
2014-04-07 17:40 ` Mike Hearn
2014-04-07 17:44 ` Gregory Maxwell
2014-04-07 17:45 ` Tamas Blummer
2014-04-07 17:50 ` Justus Ranvier
2014-04-07 18:30 ` Arne Brutschy
2014-04-07 17:56 ` Brent Shambaugh
2014-04-07 17:46 ` Justus Ranvier
2014-04-07 17:39 ` Chris Williams
2014-04-07 18:23 ` Mike Hearn
2014-04-07 18:35 ` Tamas Blummer
2014-04-07 18:49 ` Gregory Maxwell
2014-04-07 19:00 ` Tamas Blummer
2014-04-07 18:48 ` Mark Friedenbach
2014-04-07 19:02 ` Gregory Maxwell
2014-04-07 19:05 ` Tamas Blummer
2014-04-07 19:03 ` Gregory Maxwell
2014-04-07 19:13 ` Tier Nolan
2014-04-07 19:20 ` Tamas Blummer
2014-04-07 19:13 ` Mark Friedenbach
2014-04-07 19:36 ` Tamas Blummer
2014-04-07 21:46 ` Ricardo Filipe
2014-04-07 19:30 ` Paul Lyon
2014-04-07 19:50 ` Tamas Blummer
2014-04-07 21:48 ` Tier Nolan
2014-04-07 21:56 ` Gregory Maxwell
2014-04-08 3:44 ` Jeff Garzik
2014-04-08 7:24 ` Jean-Paul Kogelman
2014-04-08 7:59 ` Tamas Blummer
2014-04-08 17:18 ` Andrew LeCody
2014-04-07 17:07 ` Drak
2014-05-20 8:15 ` bitcoingrant
2014-05-20 8:42 ` Mike Hearn
2014-05-20 14:37 ` Eugen Leitl
2014-05-20 14:52 ` Gmail
2014-05-20 18:46 ` Andy Alness
2014-05-20 19:17 ` Jeff Garzik
2014-05-20 20:09 ` Andy Alness
2014-05-20 20:22 ` Jeff Garzik
2014-04-07 21:55 Paul Lyon
2014-04-07 22:14 ` Tier Nolan
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20140520183815.2A186DF7279@quidecco.de \
--to=cryptocurrencies@quidecco$(echo .)de \
--cc=bitcoin-development@lists$(echo .)sourceforge.net \
--cc=mike@plan99$(echo .)net \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox