Re: [bitcoin-dev] Full node "tip" function

From: Aymeric Vitte <vitteaymeric@gmail•com>
To: Erik Aronesty <erik@q32•com>,
	Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Full node "tip" function
Date: Thu, 4 May 2017 16:31:11 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <e38fd508-a6d6-acce-ba59-eaac4d69a42f@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAJowKgJiW4wZ_FnVPLLTYbA1B6xgswMD19-Tf1HmowpWqZEnPQ@mail.gmail.com>

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 7417 bytes --]

Yes, as a whole, but I am sorry, your "tip" proposal is very very very
bad as it is, think a little bit more about your latest answer and you
will understand why

I am a bit perplexed sometimes about what is proposed on this list

Adding services paid by the miners is not a bad idea, like some
proposals that were posted here proposing some system to validate/format
the blocks for the miners

But, first, the highest priority is to scale the full nodes and this
cannot depend on miners, then once this is done we can imagine other
services on top of it paid by the miners or others (+lightning & co)

I have already explained many times my thoughts on the subject, I don't
pretend that they represent the perfect solution but at least it's
different from what we can read , so I think that the core dev team
should setup a task force/group to solve this quickly now, the
accumulation of strange proposals/workarounds here does not help

Because it's a real question for everybody in the current context
whether we can trust bitcoin or not, unfortunately the answer currently
tends toward the later, or please explain me why this statement could be
wrong


Le 04/05/2017 à 15:47, Erik Aronesty a écrit :
>  - Full nodes already perform many valuable services, and simply
> allowing people to pay for better service is something operators can
> do now - even without it being baked into bitcoind.   Paying for
> access to a higher-speed relay network, for example, is something that
> many operators would do.
>
> - Baking in the ability to add service fees could make more people
> *want* to run more high quality, highly available full nodes... which
> is really one of the most important things developers can be doing.
>
>
> On Thu, May 4, 2017 at 9:37 AM, Aymeric Vitte via bitcoin-dev
> <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org
> <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org>> wrote:
>
>     Strange idea, incentiving people to run full nodes should
>     certainly not depend on miners, should certainly not involve
>     another wasteful pow and should certainly not encourage any
>     collusion between participants like miners are doing (ie full
>     nodes pools for example or miners creating full nodes pools)
>
>
>     Le 04/05/2017 à 12:38, Tomas via bitcoin-dev a écrit :
>>     The ones that *could* pay non-mining full nodes are miners/pools,
>>     by outsourcing transaction selection using a different PoW.  By
>>     doing so they could buy proof-of-uncensored-selection and
>>     proof-of-goodwill for a small fee.
>>
>>     We would allow full nodes to generate and broadcast a template
>>     block which:
>>
>>     * Does not contain a valid header yet
>>     * Contains the transaction selection
>>     * Contains a coinbase output with a predetermined part of the
>>     block reward (say 0.5%) to themselves
>>     * Contains a nonce for PoW of a predetermined currently ASIC
>>     resistant hash function behind a OP_RETURN.
>>
>>     The template with the highest PoW since the last block would be
>>     leading. A miner/pool can then choose to use this instead of
>>     their own, adding the rest of the reward and the SHA nonce
>>     themselves. That way they would set up a competition among full
>>     nodes.
>>
>>     This would of course be voluntary but provable, so maybe in a
>>     pool's interest to do this via naming and shaming.
>>
>>     Tomas
>>     bitcrust
>>
>>     On Wed, May 3, 2017, at 23:43, Ben Thompson via bitcoin-dev wrote:
>>>     I feel like this would be pointless as the vast majority of
>>>     users would likely download the blockchain from a node that was
>>>     not enforcing a tip requirement as it would seem like
>>>     unnecessary cost as in protocols such as BitTorrent there is no
>>>     such tips in sharing files and the blockchain distribution is in
>>>     eccense the same thing. However perhaps I am underestimating the
>>>     generosity of node operators but I feel that adding a cost to
>>>     the blockchain (assuming that all users add a tip requirement)
>>>     would lead to centralisation.
>>>
>>>     On Wed, 3 May 2017, 22:21 Erik Aronesty via bitcoin-dev,
>>>     <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org
>>>     <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org>> wrote:
>>>
>>>         IDEA:
>>>         - Full nodes advertise a bitcoin address.   Users that need
>>>         to download the block chain from that node can be encouraged
>>>         to send a tip to the peers that served them (by % served).  
>>>         Recommended tip of 10mbit should be fine.
>>>
>>>         - A full nodes can *require* a tip to download the
>>>         blockchain.  If they do, users that don't specify a tip
>>>         cannot use them.
>>>
>>>         CONS:
>>>
>>>         For some people, this may represent a barrier to hosting
>>>         their own full node.   After all, if you have to pay $15
>>>         just to get a copy of the blockchain, that just adds to the
>>>         already expensive prospect of hosting a full node.  
>>>         PROS:
>>>
>>>         As long as you manage to stay online, you should get your
>>>         money back and more.   This is the an incentive for quality,
>>>         long term hosting.
>>>         In the long term, this should cause stable nodes to stick
>>>         around longer.   It also discourages "installation spam"
>>>         attacks on the network.
>>>         Fees for other node operations can be considered if this is
>>>         successful.
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>     _______________________________________________
>>     bitcoin-dev mailing list
>>     bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org
>>     <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org>
>>     https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>>     <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev>
>
>     -- 
>     Zcash wallets made simple: https://github.com/Ayms/zcash-wallets
>     <https://github.com/Ayms/zcash-wallets>
>     Bitcoin wallets made simple: https://github.com/Ayms/bitcoin-wallets
>     <https://github.com/Ayms/bitcoin-wallets>
>     Get the torrent dynamic blocklist: http://peersm.com/getblocklist
>     Check the 10 M passwords list: http://peersm.com/findmyass
>     Anti-spies and private torrents, dynamic blocklist: http://torrent-live.org
>     Peersm : http://www.peersm.com
>     torrent-live: https://github.com/Ayms/torrent-live
>     <https://github.com/Ayms/torrent-live>
>     node-Tor : https://www.github.com/Ayms/node-Tor
>     <https://www.github.com/Ayms/node-Tor>
>     GitHub : https://www.github.com/Ayms
>
>     _______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev
>     mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org
>     <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org>
>     https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>     <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev> 
>
-- 
Zcash wallets made simple: https://github.com/Ayms/zcash-wallets
Bitcoin wallets made simple: https://github.com/Ayms/bitcoin-wallets
Get the torrent dynamic blocklist: http://peersm.com/getblocklist
Check the 10 M passwords list: http://peersm.com/findmyass
Anti-spies and private torrents, dynamic blocklist: http://torrent-live.org
Peersm : http://www.peersm.com
torrent-live: https://github.com/Ayms/torrent-live
node-Tor : https://www.github.com/Ayms/node-Tor
GitHub : https://www.github.com/Ayms

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 15614 bytes --]