* Re: [Bitcoin-development] The Bitcoin Node Market
@ 2015-06-16 4:38 Raystonn
0 siblings, 0 replies; 17+ messages in thread
From: Raystonn @ 2015-06-16 4:38 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Kevin Greene; +Cc: Bitcoin Dev
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/html, Size: 3446 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* Re: [Bitcoin-development] The Bitcoin Node Market
2015-06-16 13:32 ` justusranvier
2015-06-16 17:04 ` Aaron Voisine
@ 2015-06-16 17:22 ` Aaron Voisine
1 sibling, 0 replies; 17+ messages in thread
From: Aaron Voisine @ 2015-06-16 17:22 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: justusranvier; +Cc: Bitcoin Dev
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 745 bytes --]
Alternate funding strategy: With 1billion users, mr roger ver is now among
the worlds first $trillionaires, and he generously donates to the
non-profit organization responsible for both the wildly popular wallet, and
his new found largess.
On Tuesday, June 16, 2015, justusranvier@riseup•net <
justusranvier@riseup•net> wrote:
> On 2015-06-16 07:55, Aaron Voisine wrote:
>
>> Suppose a billion mobile phones wanted to run SPV wallets tomorrow. Who
>>> would provide the nodes they would need connect to?
>>>
>>
>> The SPV wallet author would if they wanted their wallet to function.
>>
>
> How will the SPV wallet users pay for this service? With their money, or
> with their privacy?
>
--
Aaron Voisine
co-founder and CEO
breadwallet.com
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1368 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* Re: [Bitcoin-development] The Bitcoin Node Market
2015-06-16 13:32 ` justusranvier
@ 2015-06-16 17:04 ` Aaron Voisine
2015-06-16 17:22 ` Aaron Voisine
1 sibling, 0 replies; 17+ messages in thread
From: Aaron Voisine @ 2015-06-16 17:04 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: justusranvier; +Cc: Bitcoin Dev
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 631 bytes --]
With their money, if they were to take advantage of optional additional
financial services, like, as one example, comsumer protection insurance.
Aaron
On Tuesday, June 16, 2015, <justusranvier@riseup•net> wrote:
> On 2015-06-16 07:55, Aaron Voisine wrote:
>
>> Suppose a billion mobile phones wanted to run SPV wallets tomorrow. Who
>>> would provide the nodes they would need connect to?
>>>
>>
>> The SPV wallet author would if they wanted their wallet to function.
>>
>
> How will the SPV wallet users pay for this service? With their money, or
> with their privacy?
>
--
Aaron Voisine
co-founder and CEO
breadwallet.com
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1232 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* Re: [Bitcoin-development] The Bitcoin Node Market
2015-06-16 7:55 ` Aaron Voisine
2015-06-16 13:32 ` justusranvier
@ 2015-06-16 15:52 ` devrandom
1 sibling, 0 replies; 17+ messages in thread
From: devrandom @ 2015-06-16 15:52 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Aaron Voisine, Justus Ranvier; +Cc: Bitcoin Dev
On 2015-06-16 12:55 AM, Aaron Voisine wrote:
>> Suppose a billion mobile phones wanted to run SPV wallets tomorrow. Who
>> would provide the nodes they would need connect to?
>
> The SPV wallet author would if they wanted their wallet to function.
I would also guess that the cost to provide service to SPV wallets is
less than $0.01/mo per wallet and in any case less than long-term
transaction fees. This can either be taken up by the wallet author or
transparently through a payment channel by the user.
>
>
> Aaron Voisine
> co-founder and CEO
> breadwallet.com <http://breadwallet.com>
--
devrandom / Miron
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* Re: [Bitcoin-development] The Bitcoin Node Market
2015-06-16 7:55 ` Aaron Voisine
@ 2015-06-16 13:32 ` justusranvier
2015-06-16 17:04 ` Aaron Voisine
2015-06-16 17:22 ` Aaron Voisine
2015-06-16 15:52 ` devrandom
1 sibling, 2 replies; 17+ messages in thread
From: justusranvier @ 2015-06-16 13:32 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Aaron Voisine; +Cc: Bitcoin Dev
On 2015-06-16 07:55, Aaron Voisine wrote:
>> Suppose a billion mobile phones wanted to run SPV wallets tomorrow.
>> Who
>> would provide the nodes they would need connect to?
>
> The SPV wallet author would if they wanted their wallet to function.
How will the SPV wallet users pay for this service? With their money, or
with their privacy?
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* Re: [Bitcoin-development] The Bitcoin Node Market
2015-06-16 5:28 ` justusranvier
2015-06-16 5:30 ` Potter QQ
@ 2015-06-16 7:55 ` Aaron Voisine
2015-06-16 13:32 ` justusranvier
2015-06-16 15:52 ` devrandom
1 sibling, 2 replies; 17+ messages in thread
From: Aaron Voisine @ 2015-06-16 7:55 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Justus Ranvier; +Cc: Bitcoin Dev
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1800 bytes --]
> Suppose a billion mobile phones wanted to run SPV wallets tomorrow. Who
> would provide the nodes they would need connect to?
The SPV wallet author would if they wanted their wallet to function.
Aaron Voisine
co-founder and CEO
breadwallet.com
On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 10:28 PM, <justusranvier@riseup•net> wrote:
> On 2015-06-16 03:49, Kevin Greene wrote:
> > Hah, fair enough, there is no such thing as the "right" way to do
> > anything. But I still think punishing users who use SPV wallets is a
> > less-than-ideal way to incentive people to run full nodes. Right now
> > SPV is
> > the best way that exists for mobile phones to participate in the
> > network in
> > a decentralized way. This proposal makes the user experience for mobile
> > wallets a little more confusing and annoying.
>
> Suppose a billion mobile phones wanted to run SPV wallets tomorrow. Who
> would provide the nodes they would need connect to? The decentralization
> fairy?
>
> There's absolutely no reason that paying for connectivity would be any
> more confusing or annoying than transaction fees are.
>
> If some full nodes in the network started offering paid connection
> slots, that would just mean that users who checked the "pay subscription
> fee" box in their wallet configuration would have an easier time
> connecting than the users who did't, just like how your transaction
> might eventually get mined without a fee but paying one makes it faster
> and more probable.
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> _______________________________________________
> Bitcoin-development mailing list
> Bitcoin-development@lists•sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
>
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2955 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* Re: [Bitcoin-development] The Bitcoin Node Market
2015-06-16 5:28 ` justusranvier
@ 2015-06-16 5:30 ` Potter QQ
2015-06-16 7:55 ` Aaron Voisine
1 sibling, 0 replies; 17+ messages in thread
From: Potter QQ @ 2015-06-16 5:30 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: justusranvier; +Cc: Bitcoin Dev
No,Bitcoin
发自我的 iPhone
> 在 2015年6月16日，13:28，justusranvier@riseup•net 写道：
>
>> On 2015-06-16 03:49, Kevin Greene wrote:
>> Hah, fair enough, there is no such thing as the "right" way to do
>> anything. But I still think punishing users who use SPV wallets is a
>> less-than-ideal way to incentive people to run full nodes. Right now
>> SPV is
>> the best way that exists for mobile phones to participate in the
>> network in
>> a decentralized way. This proposal makes the user experience for mobile
>> wallets a little more confusing and annoying.
>
> Suppose a billion mobile phones wanted to run SPV wallets tomorrow. Who
> would provide the nodes they would need connect to? The decentralization
> fairy?
>
> There's absolutely no reason that paying for connectivity would be any
> more confusing or annoying than transaction fees are.
>
> If some full nodes in the network started offering paid connection
> slots, that would just mean that users who checked the "pay subscription
> fee" box in their wallet configuration would have an easier time
> connecting than the users who did't, just like how your transaction
> might eventually get mined without a fee but paying one makes it faster
> and more probable.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> _______________________________________________
> Bitcoin-development mailing list
> Bitcoin-development@lists•sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinf
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* Re: [Bitcoin-development] The Bitcoin Node Market
2015-06-16 3:49 ` Kevin Greene
2015-06-16 4:05 ` Kevin Greene
2015-06-16 4:12 ` Aaron Voisine
@ 2015-06-16 5:28 ` justusranvier
2015-06-16 5:30 ` Potter QQ
2015-06-16 7:55 ` Aaron Voisine
2 siblings, 2 replies; 17+ messages in thread
From: justusranvier @ 2015-06-16 5:28 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Kevin Greene; +Cc: Bitcoin Dev
On 2015-06-16 03:49, Kevin Greene wrote:
> Hah, fair enough, there is no such thing as the "right" way to do
> anything. But I still think punishing users who use SPV wallets is a
> less-than-ideal way to incentive people to run full nodes. Right now
> SPV is
> the best way that exists for mobile phones to participate in the
> network in
> a decentralized way. This proposal makes the user experience for mobile
> wallets a little more confusing and annoying.
Suppose a billion mobile phones wanted to run SPV wallets tomorrow. Who
would provide the nodes they would need connect to? The decentralization
fairy?
There's absolutely no reason that paying for connectivity would be any
more confusing or annoying than transaction fees are.
If some full nodes in the network started offering paid connection
slots, that would just mean that users who checked the "pay subscription
fee" box in their wallet configuration would have an easier time
connecting than the users who did't, just like how your transaction
might eventually get mined without a fee but paying one makes it faster
and more probable.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* Re: [Bitcoin-development] The Bitcoin Node Market
2015-06-16 3:49 ` Kevin Greene
2015-06-16 4:05 ` Kevin Greene
@ 2015-06-16 4:12 ` Aaron Voisine
2015-06-16 5:28 ` justusranvier
2 siblings, 0 replies; 17+ messages in thread
From: Aaron Voisine @ 2015-06-16 4:12 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Kevin Greene; +Cc: Bitcoin Dev
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2452 bytes --]
We're planning to run our own full nodes to take load off the volunteer
network as breadwallet use increases, and also contribute any SPV serving
performance optimizations we can make to bitcoin-core. Just want to let
people know we share these concerns and have plans to mitigate any negative
impact on the network.
Aaron Voisine
co-founder and CEO
breadwallet.com
On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 8:49 PM, Kevin Greene <kgreenek@gmail•com> wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 8:41 PM, Luke Dashjr <luke@dashjr•org> wrote:
>
>> On Tuesday, June 16, 2015 3:30:44 AM Kevin Greene wrote:
>> > Would SPV wallets have to pay to connect to the network too? From the
>> > user's perspective, it would be somewhat upsetting (and confusing) to
>> see
>> > your balance slowly draining every time you open your wallet app. It
>> would
>> > also tie up outputs every time you open up your wallet. You may go to
>> pay
>> > for something in a coffee shop, only to find that you can't spend your
>> > bitcoin because the wallet had to create a transaction to pay to sync
>> with
>> > the network.
>> >
>> > Also, users of centralized wallet services like Coinbase would not have
>> to
>> > pay that fee; but users of native wallets like breadwallet would have no
>> > such option. This incentivizes users to use centralized wallets.
>> >
>> > So this is kind of imposing a worse user experience on users who want to
>> > use bitcoin the "right" way. That doesn't seem like a good thing to me
>> :/
>>
>> SPV isn't the "right" way either ;)
>>
>
> Hah, fair enough, there is no such thing as the "right" way to do
> anything. But I still think punishing users who use SPV wallets is a
> less-than-ideal way to incentive people to run full nodes. Right now SPV is
> the best way that exists for mobile phones to participate in the network in
> a decentralized way. This proposal makes the user experience for mobile
> wallets a little more confusing and annoying.
>
>
>>
>> If you're running a full node (the real "right way"), you should be able
>> to
>> earn more bitcoins than you pay out.
>>
>> Luke
>>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Bitcoin-development mailing list
> Bitcoin-development@lists•sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
>
>
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 3829 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* Re: [Bitcoin-development] The Bitcoin Node Market
2015-06-16 3:49 ` Kevin Greene
@ 2015-06-16 4:05 ` Kevin Greene
2015-06-16 4:12 ` Aaron Voisine
2015-06-16 5:28 ` justusranvier
2 siblings, 0 replies; 17+ messages in thread
From: Kevin Greene @ 2015-06-16 4:05 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Luke Dashjr; +Cc: Bitcoin Dev
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2881 bytes --]
Just thinking off the top of my head here:
What if SPV wallets were exempt from the fee? Only full nodes would pay
other full nodes when initially sync'ing the blockchain. Then as long as
you keep your full node running for a long period of time, you'll
eventually make back the cost you paid to sync initially. This at least
incentives full node operators to keep their node running for as long as
possible once started.
This still imposes a worse UX on casual users who want full node security,
but don't want to run a server 24/7 (or perhaps simply aren't aware that
they have to). These users will watch their balance wither away each time
they open their wallet, but it would be very difficult to explain to them
why that is happening. It would just be frustrating and confusing.
Also, what happens when a user runs Bitcoin-QT for the first time after
downloading it to try it out? They wouldn't be able to sync the blockchain.
Even if the wallet has a balance, how would the wallet be able to see that
it has UTXO's without the ability to sync with the network for free?
On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 8:49 PM, Kevin Greene <kgreenek@gmail•com> wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 8:41 PM, Luke Dashjr <luke@dashjr•org> wrote:
>
>> On Tuesday, June 16, 2015 3:30:44 AM Kevin Greene wrote:
>> > Would SPV wallets have to pay to connect to the network too? From the
>> > user's perspective, it would be somewhat upsetting (and confusing) to
>> see
>> > your balance slowly draining every time you open your wallet app. It
>> would
>> > also tie up outputs every time you open up your wallet. You may go to
>> pay
>> > for something in a coffee shop, only to find that you can't spend your
>> > bitcoin because the wallet had to create a transaction to pay to sync
>> with
>> > the network.
>> >
>> > Also, users of centralized wallet services like Coinbase would not have
>> to
>> > pay that fee; but users of native wallets like breadwallet would have no
>> > such option. This incentivizes users to use centralized wallets.
>> >
>> > So this is kind of imposing a worse user experience on users who want to
>> > use bitcoin the "right" way. That doesn't seem like a good thing to me
>> :/
>>
>> SPV isn't the "right" way either ;)
>>
>
> Hah, fair enough, there is no such thing as the "right" way to do
> anything. But I still think punishing users who use SPV wallets is a
> less-than-ideal way to incentive people to run full nodes. Right now SPV is
> the best way that exists for mobile phones to participate in the network in
> a decentralized way. This proposal makes the user experience for mobile
> wallets a little more confusing and annoying.
>
>
>>
>> If you're running a full node (the real "right way"), you should be able
>> to
>> earn more bitcoins than you pay out.
>>
>> Luke
>>
>
>
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 4337 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* Re: [Bitcoin-development] The Bitcoin Node Market
2015-06-16 3:41 ` Luke Dashjr
@ 2015-06-16 3:49 ` Kevin Greene
2015-06-16 4:05 ` Kevin Greene
` (2 more replies)
0 siblings, 3 replies; 17+ messages in thread
From: Kevin Greene @ 2015-06-16 3:49 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Luke Dashjr; +Cc: Bitcoin Dev
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1628 bytes --]
On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 8:41 PM, Luke Dashjr <luke@dashjr•org> wrote:
> On Tuesday, June 16, 2015 3:30:44 AM Kevin Greene wrote:
> > Would SPV wallets have to pay to connect to the network too? From the
> > user's perspective, it would be somewhat upsetting (and confusing) to see
> > your balance slowly draining every time you open your wallet app. It
> would
> > also tie up outputs every time you open up your wallet. You may go to pay
> > for something in a coffee shop, only to find that you can't spend your
> > bitcoin because the wallet had to create a transaction to pay to sync
> with
> > the network.
> >
> > Also, users of centralized wallet services like Coinbase would not have
> to
> > pay that fee; but users of native wallets like breadwallet would have no
> > such option. This incentivizes users to use centralized wallets.
> >
> > So this is kind of imposing a worse user experience on users who want to
> > use bitcoin the "right" way. That doesn't seem like a good thing to me :/
>
> SPV isn't the "right" way either ;)
>
Hah, fair enough, there is no such thing as the "right" way to do
anything. But I still think punishing users who use SPV wallets is a
less-than-ideal way to incentive people to run full nodes. Right now SPV is
the best way that exists for mobile phones to participate in the network in
a decentralized way. This proposal makes the user experience for mobile
wallets a little more confusing and annoying.
>
> If you're running a full node (the real "right way"), you should be able to
> earn more bitcoins than you pay out.
>
> Luke
>
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2394 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* Re: [Bitcoin-development] The Bitcoin Node Market
2015-06-16 3:30 ` Kevin Greene
@ 2015-06-16 3:41 ` Luke Dashjr
2015-06-16 3:49 ` Kevin Greene
0 siblings, 1 reply; 17+ messages in thread
From: Luke Dashjr @ 2015-06-16 3:41 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: bitcoin-development
On Tuesday, June 16, 2015 3:30:44 AM Kevin Greene wrote:
> Would SPV wallets have to pay to connect to the network too? From the
> user's perspective, it would be somewhat upsetting (and confusing) to see
> your balance slowly draining every time you open your wallet app. It would
> also tie up outputs every time you open up your wallet. You may go to pay
> for something in a coffee shop, only to find that you can't spend your
> bitcoin because the wallet had to create a transaction to pay to sync with
> the network.
>
> Also, users of centralized wallet services like Coinbase would not have to
> pay that fee; but users of native wallets like breadwallet would have no
> such option. This incentivizes users to use centralized wallets.
>
> So this is kind of imposing a worse user experience on users who want to
> use bitcoin the "right" way. That doesn't seem like a good thing to me :/
SPV isn't the "right" way either ;)
If you're running a full node (the real "right way"), you should be able to
earn more bitcoins than you pay out.
Luke
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* Re: [Bitcoin-development] The Bitcoin Node Market
2015-06-15 20:12 ` sickpig
@ 2015-06-16 3:30 ` Kevin Greene
2015-06-16 3:41 ` Luke Dashjr
0 siblings, 1 reply; 17+ messages in thread
From: Kevin Greene @ 2015-06-16 3:30 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: sickpig; +Cc: Bitcoin Dev
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4280 bytes --]
Would SPV wallets have to pay to connect to the network too? From the
user's perspective, it would be somewhat upsetting (and confusing) to see
your balance slowly draining every time you open your wallet app. It would
also tie up outputs every time you open up your wallet. You may go to pay
for something in a coffee shop, only to find that you can't spend your
bitcoin because the wallet had to create a transaction to pay to sync with
the network.
Also, users of centralized wallet services like Coinbase would not have to
pay that fee; but users of native wallets like breadwallet would have no
such option. This incentivizes users to use centralized wallets.
So this is kind of imposing a worse user experience on users who want to
use bitcoin the "right" way. That doesn't seem like a good thing to me :/
On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 1:12 PM, sickpig@gmail•com <sickpig@gmail•com>
wrote:
> Hi Raystonn
>
> On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 9:36 PM, Raystonn . <raystonn@hotmail•com> wrote:
> >
> > I am only partially through the content at the below link, and I am very
> impressed. Has Justus Ranvier began work on implementation of the ideas
> contained therein?
>
> I don't know if he or someone else has begun writing code to implement
> what was described in the liked post, but I'm sure he will reply to
> you since he's subscribed to this mailing list.
>
>
> >
> >
> >
> > From: sickpig@gmail•com
> > Sent: Monday, June 15, 2015 12:18 PM
> > To: Raystonn .
> > Cc: Bitcoin Dev
> > Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] The Bitcoin Node Market
> >
> >
> > Sorry for top posting and the brevity but I'm typing from my phone
> >
> > You shoud be interested in this post by Justus Ranvier then:
> >
> >
> https://bitcoinism.liberty.me/economic-fallacies-and-the-block-size-limit-part-2-price-discovery/
> >
> > On Jun 15, 2015 8:57 PM, "Raystonn ." <raystonn@hotmail•com> wrote:
> >>
> >> I have been toying with an idea and figured I'd run it by everyone here
> >> before investing further time in it. The goal here is to make it
> >> sustainable, and perhaps profitable, to run full nodes on the Bitcoin
> >> Network in the long term.
> >>
> >> - Nodes can participate in a market wherein they are paid by nodes,
> wallets,
> >> and other services to supply Bitcoin Network data. Payment should be
> based
> >> on the cost imposed on the Node to do the work and send the data, but
> can be
> >> set in any way the node operator desires. It's a free market.
> >> - Nodes that are mostly leeching data from the Bitcoin Network, such as
> >> those that do not receive inbound connections to port 8333, will send
> >> payments to the nodes they connect to, but will likely receive no
> payments
> >> from other nodes, wallets, and other services.
> >> - Nodes that are providing balanced full service to the Bitcoin Network
> will
> >> tend to have a balance of payments coming in and going out with regards
> to
> >> other balanced full service nodes, leaving them revenue neutral there.
> But
> >> they will receive payments from leech nodes, wallets, and other
> services.
> >>
> >> The net effect here is that the cost to run nodes will be shared by
> those
> >> who are using the Bitcoin network but not contributing by running a full
> >> node. A market will develop for fees to connect to the Bitcoin Network
> >> which should help cover the cost of running the Network. It's still
> >> possible to continue offering access to your node for free as there is
> >> nothing forcing you to charge a fee. But this isn't very sustainable
> >> long-run. Market efficiencies should eventually mean nodes take in only
> >> what is required to keep the Network operational.
> >>
> >> Raystonn
> >>
> >>
> >>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Bitcoin-development mailing list
> >> Bitcoin-development@lists•sourceforge.net
> >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> _______________________________________________
> Bitcoin-development mailing list
> Bitcoin-development@lists•sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
>
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 6122 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* Re: [Bitcoin-development] The Bitcoin Node Market
2015-06-15 19:36 ` Raystonn .
@ 2015-06-15 20:12 ` sickpig
2015-06-16 3:30 ` Kevin Greene
0 siblings, 1 reply; 17+ messages in thread
From: sickpig @ 2015-06-15 20:12 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Raystonn .; +Cc: Bitcoin Dev
Hi Raystonn
On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 9:36 PM, Raystonn . <raystonn@hotmail•com> wrote:
>
> I am only partially through the content at the below link, and I am very impressed. Has Justus Ranvier began work on implementation of the ideas contained therein?
I don't know if he or someone else has begun writing code to implement
what was described in the liked post, but I'm sure he will reply to
you since he's subscribed to this mailing list.
>
>
>
> From: sickpig@gmail•com
> Sent: Monday, June 15, 2015 12:18 PM
> To: Raystonn .
> Cc: Bitcoin Dev
> Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] The Bitcoin Node Market
>
>
> Sorry for top posting and the brevity but I'm typing from my phone
>
> You shoud be interested in this post by Justus Ranvier then:
>
> https://bitcoinism.liberty.me/economic-fallacies-and-the-block-size-limit-part-2-price-discovery/
>
> On Jun 15, 2015 8:57 PM, "Raystonn ." <raystonn@hotmail•com> wrote:
>>
>> I have been toying with an idea and figured I'd run it by everyone here
>> before investing further time in it. The goal here is to make it
>> sustainable, and perhaps profitable, to run full nodes on the Bitcoin
>> Network in the long term.
>>
>> - Nodes can participate in a market wherein they are paid by nodes, wallets,
>> and other services to supply Bitcoin Network data. Payment should be based
>> on the cost imposed on the Node to do the work and send the data, but can be
>> set in any way the node operator desires. It's a free market.
>> - Nodes that are mostly leeching data from the Bitcoin Network, such as
>> those that do not receive inbound connections to port 8333, will send
>> payments to the nodes they connect to, but will likely receive no payments
>> from other nodes, wallets, and other services.
>> - Nodes that are providing balanced full service to the Bitcoin Network will
>> tend to have a balance of payments coming in and going out with regards to
>> other balanced full service nodes, leaving them revenue neutral there. But
>> they will receive payments from leech nodes, wallets, and other services.
>>
>> The net effect here is that the cost to run nodes will be shared by those
>> who are using the Bitcoin network but not contributing by running a full
>> node. A market will develop for fees to connect to the Bitcoin Network
>> which should help cover the cost of running the Network. It's still
>> possible to continue offering access to your node for free as there is
>> nothing forcing you to charge a fee. But this isn't very sustainable
>> long-run. Market efficiencies should eventually mean nodes take in only
>> what is required to keep the Network operational.
>>
>> Raystonn
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> _______________________________________________
>> Bitcoin-development mailing list
>> Bitcoin-development@lists•sourceforge.net
>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* Re: [Bitcoin-development] The Bitcoin Node Market
2015-06-15 19:18 ` sickpig
@ 2015-06-15 19:36 ` Raystonn .
2015-06-15 20:12 ` sickpig
0 siblings, 1 reply; 17+ messages in thread
From: Raystonn . @ 2015-06-15 19:36 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: sickpig; +Cc: Bitcoin Dev
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2658 bytes --]
I am only partially through the content at the below link, and I am very impressed. Has Justus Ranvier began work on implementation of the ideas contained therein?
From: sickpig@gmail•com
Sent: Monday, June 15, 2015 12:18 PM
To: Raystonn .
Cc: Bitcoin Dev
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] The Bitcoin Node Market
Sorry for top posting and the brevity but I'm typing from my phone
You shoud be interested in this post by Justus Ranvier then:
https://bitcoinism.liberty.me/economic-fallacies-and-the-block-size-limit-part-2-price-discovery/
On Jun 15, 2015 8:57 PM, "Raystonn ." <raystonn@hotmail•com> wrote:
I have been toying with an idea and figured I'd run it by everyone here
before investing further time in it. The goal here is to make it
sustainable, and perhaps profitable, to run full nodes on the Bitcoin
Network in the long term.
- Nodes can participate in a market wherein they are paid by nodes, wallets,
and other services to supply Bitcoin Network data. Payment should be based
on the cost imposed on the Node to do the work and send the data, but can be
set in any way the node operator desires. It's a free market.
- Nodes that are mostly leeching data from the Bitcoin Network, such as
those that do not receive inbound connections to port 8333, will send
payments to the nodes they connect to, but will likely receive no payments
from other nodes, wallets, and other services.
- Nodes that are providing balanced full service to the Bitcoin Network will
tend to have a balance of payments coming in and going out with regards to
other balanced full service nodes, leaving them revenue neutral there. But
they will receive payments from leech nodes, wallets, and other services.
The net effect here is that the cost to run nodes will be shared by those
who are using the Bitcoin network but not contributing by running a full
node. A market will develop for fees to connect to the Bitcoin Network
which should help cover the cost of running the Network. It's still
possible to continue offering access to your node for free as there is
nothing forcing you to charge a fee. But this isn't very sustainable
long-run. Market efficiencies should eventually mean nodes take in only
what is required to keep the Network operational.
Raystonn
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Bitcoin-development mailing list
Bitcoin-development@lists•sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 4372 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* Re: [Bitcoin-development] The Bitcoin Node Market
2015-06-15 18:57 ` [Bitcoin-development] The Bitcoin Node Market Raystonn .
@ 2015-06-15 19:18 ` sickpig
2015-06-15 19:36 ` Raystonn .
0 siblings, 1 reply; 17+ messages in thread
From: sickpig @ 2015-06-15 19:18 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Raystonn .; +Cc: Bitcoin Dev
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2298 bytes --]
Sorry for top posting and the brevity but I'm typing from my phone
You shoud be interested in this post by Justus Ranvier then:
https://bitcoinism.liberty.me/economic-fallacies-and-the-block-size-limit-part-2-price-discovery/
On Jun 15, 2015 8:57 PM, "Raystonn ." <raystonn@hotmail•com> wrote:
> I have been toying with an idea and figured I'd run it by everyone here
> before investing further time in it. The goal here is to make it
> sustainable, and perhaps profitable, to run full nodes on the Bitcoin
> Network in the long term.
>
> - Nodes can participate in a market wherein they are paid by nodes,
> wallets,
> and other services to supply Bitcoin Network data. Payment should be based
> on the cost imposed on the Node to do the work and send the data, but can
> be
> set in any way the node operator desires. It's a free market.
> - Nodes that are mostly leeching data from the Bitcoin Network, such as
> those that do not receive inbound connections to port 8333, will send
> payments to the nodes they connect to, but will likely receive no payments
> from other nodes, wallets, and other services.
> - Nodes that are providing balanced full service to the Bitcoin Network
> will
> tend to have a balance of payments coming in and going out with regards to
> other balanced full service nodes, leaving them revenue neutral there. But
> they will receive payments from leech nodes, wallets, and other services.
>
> The net effect here is that the cost to run nodes will be shared by those
> who are using the Bitcoin network but not contributing by running a full
> node. A market will develop for fees to connect to the Bitcoin Network
> which should help cover the cost of running the Network. It's still
> possible to continue offering access to your node for free as there is
> nothing forcing you to charge a fee. But this isn't very sustainable
> long-run. Market efficiencies should eventually mean nodes take in only
> what is required to keep the Network operational.
>
> Raystonn
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> _______________________________________________
> Bitcoin-development mailing list
> Bitcoin-development@lists•sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
>
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2992 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* [Bitcoin-development] The Bitcoin Node Market
2015-06-15 18:14 ` Adam Back
@ 2015-06-15 18:57 ` Raystonn .
2015-06-15 19:18 ` sickpig
0 siblings, 1 reply; 17+ messages in thread
From: Raystonn . @ 2015-06-15 18:57 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Bitcoin Dev
I have been toying with an idea and figured I'd run it by everyone here
before investing further time in it. The goal here is to make it
sustainable, and perhaps profitable, to run full nodes on the Bitcoin
Network in the long term.
- Nodes can participate in a market wherein they are paid by nodes, wallets,
and other services to supply Bitcoin Network data. Payment should be based
on the cost imposed on the Node to do the work and send the data, but can be
set in any way the node operator desires. It's a free market.
- Nodes that are mostly leeching data from the Bitcoin Network, such as
those that do not receive inbound connections to port 8333, will send
payments to the nodes they connect to, but will likely receive no payments
from other nodes, wallets, and other services.
- Nodes that are providing balanced full service to the Bitcoin Network will
tend to have a balance of payments coming in and going out with regards to
other balanced full service nodes, leaving them revenue neutral there. But
they will receive payments from leech nodes, wallets, and other services.
The net effect here is that the cost to run nodes will be shared by those
who are using the Bitcoin network but not contributing by running a full
node. A market will develop for fees to connect to the Bitcoin Network
which should help cover the cost of running the Network. It's still
possible to continue offering access to your node for free as there is
nothing forcing you to charge a fee. But this isn't very sustainable
long-run. Market efficiencies should eventually mean nodes take in only
what is required to keep the Network operational.
Raystonn
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2015-06-16 17:23 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 17+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2015-06-16 4:38 [Bitcoin-development] The Bitcoin Node Market Raystonn
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2015-06-14 21:23 [Bitcoin-development] comments on BIP 100 Adam Back
2015-06-14 22:23 ` Mike Hearn
2015-06-14 23:58 ` Adam Back
2015-06-15 9:27 ` Mike Hearn
2015-06-15 10:24 ` Pieter Wuille
2015-06-15 10:36 ` Mike Hearn
2015-06-15 10:40 ` Pieter Wuille
2015-06-15 10:50 ` Mike Hearn
2015-06-15 11:16 ` Rebroad (sourceforge)
2015-06-15 17:53 ` Raystonn .
2015-06-15 18:14 ` Adam Back
2015-06-15 18:57 ` [Bitcoin-development] The Bitcoin Node Market Raystonn .
2015-06-15 19:18 ` sickpig
2015-06-15 19:36 ` Raystonn .
2015-06-15 20:12 ` sickpig
2015-06-16 3:30 ` Kevin Greene
2015-06-16 3:41 ` Luke Dashjr
2015-06-16 3:49 ` Kevin Greene
2015-06-16 4:05 ` Kevin Greene
2015-06-16 4:12 ` Aaron Voisine
2015-06-16 5:28 ` justusranvier
2015-06-16 5:30 ` Potter QQ
2015-06-16 7:55 ` Aaron Voisine
2015-06-16 13:32 ` justusranvier
2015-06-16 17:04 ` Aaron Voisine
2015-06-16 17:22 ` Aaron Voisine
2015-06-16 15:52 ` devrandom
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox