From: Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell@gmail•com>
To: Justus Ranvier <justusranvier@gmail•com>
Cc: Bitcoin Development <bitcoin-development@lists•sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Bitcoind-in-background mode for SPV wallets
Date: Wed, 9 Apr 2014 12:33:33 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAAS2fgQyXHNnBDKoUMd_=-=1irGJ6cFKwi59enLJvFJiWBv50A@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <5345986C.3040901@gmail.com>
On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 11:58 AM, Justus Ranvier <justusranvier@gmail•com> wrote:
> Anyone reading the archives of the list will see about triple the
> number of people independently confirming the resource usage problem
> than they will see denying it, so I'm not particularly worried.
The list has open membership, there is no particular qualification or
background required to post here. Optimal use of an information source
requires critical reading and understanding the limitations of the
medium. Counting comments is usually not a great way to assess
technical considerations on an open public forum. Doubly so because
those comments were not actually talking about the same thing I am
talking about.
Existing implementations are inefficient in many known ways (and, no
doubt, some unknown ones). This list is about developing protocol and
implementations including improving their efficiency. When talking
about incentives the costs you need to consider are the costs of the
best realistic option. As far as I know there is no doubt from anyone
technically experienced that under the current network rules full
nodes can be operated with vastly less resources than current
implementations use, it's just a question of the relatively modest
implementation improvements.
When you argue that Bitcoin doesn't have the right incentives (and
thus something??) I retort that the actual resource _requirements_ are
for the protocol very low. I gave specific example numbers to enable
correction or clarification if I've said something wrong or
controversial. Pointing out that existing implementations are not that
currently as efficient as the underlying requirements and that some
large number of users do not like the efficiency of existing
implementations doesn't tell me anything I disagree with or didn't
already know. Whats being discussed around here contributes to
prioritizing improvements over the existing implementations.
I hope this clarifies something.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-04-09 19:33 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 59+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-04-09 15:29 Wladimir
2014-04-09 15:37 ` Tamas Blummer
2014-04-09 15:41 ` Natanael
2014-04-09 15:54 ` Gregory Maxwell
2014-04-09 16:09 ` Thomas Voegtlin
2014-04-09 19:25 ` Wladimir
2014-04-10 6:04 ` Tamas Blummer
2014-04-10 11:09 ` Wladimir
2014-04-10 11:29 ` Mike Hearn
2014-04-10 11:32 ` Pieter Wuille
2014-04-10 11:43 ` Peter Todd
2014-04-10 11:50 ` Gregory Maxwell
2014-04-10 11:54 ` Peter Todd
2014-04-10 17:30 ` Tier Nolan
2014-04-11 16:54 ` Gregory Maxwell
2014-05-04 21:11 ` Tier Nolan
2014-04-09 17:31 ` Wladimir
2014-04-09 15:42 ` Brian Hoffman
2014-04-09 15:57 ` Gregory Maxwell
2014-04-09 16:09 ` Tamas Blummer
2014-04-09 15:47 ` Mark Friedenbach
2014-04-09 16:27 ` Tamas Blummer
2014-04-09 17:46 ` Peter Todd
2014-04-09 17:50 ` Tamas Blummer
2014-04-09 18:00 ` Mike Hearn
2014-04-09 18:19 ` Wladimir
2014-04-09 18:35 ` Justus Ranvier
2014-04-09 18:46 ` Wladimir
2014-04-09 18:50 ` Gregory Maxwell
2014-04-09 18:58 ` Justus Ranvier
2014-04-09 19:33 ` Gregory Maxwell [this message]
2014-04-09 20:12 ` slush
2014-04-09 20:31 ` slush
2014-04-09 20:36 ` Mark Friedenbach
2014-04-09 21:04 ` Gregory Maxwell
2014-04-09 20:37 ` Wladimir
2014-04-09 20:35 ` Wladimir
2014-04-09 20:50 ` slush
2014-04-09 20:55 ` Laszlo Hanyecz
2014-04-10 6:38 ` Mike Hearn
2014-04-10 6:50 ` Wladimir
2014-04-10 7:09 ` Mike Hearn
2014-04-10 9:33 ` Peter Todd
2014-04-10 7:10 ` Tamas Blummer
2014-04-10 9:17 ` Mike Hearn
2014-04-10 9:39 ` Tamas Blummer
2014-04-10 10:40 ` Mike Hearn
2014-04-10 10:44 ` Tamas Blummer
2014-04-10 11:36 ` Peter Todd
2014-04-10 11:45 ` Mike Hearn
2014-04-10 11:52 ` Peter Todd
2014-04-10 9:47 ` Peter Todd
2014-04-09 18:04 ` Peter Todd
[not found] ` <CA+s+GJBpvqqu=XEojyekx5su+JfYLwz+zsbo8L0=5t6s-_b33w@mail.gmail.com>
2014-04-09 17:35 ` [Bitcoin-development] Fwd: " Wladimir
2014-04-09 16:03 ` [Bitcoin-development] " Peter Todd
2014-04-09 17:33 ` Alex Mizrahi
2014-04-09 17:38 ` Wladimir
2014-04-09 17:38 ` Peter Todd
2014-04-09 18:35 ` Kevin
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='CAAS2fgQyXHNnBDKoUMd_=-=1irGJ6cFKwi59enLJvFJiWBv50A@mail.gmail.com' \
--to=gmaxwell@gmail$(echo .)com \
--cc=bitcoin-development@lists$(echo .)sourceforge.net \
--cc=justusranvier@gmail$(echo .)com \
/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