📅 Original date posted:2015-08-07
📝 Original message:On Friday 7. August 2015 19.09.30 Pieter Wuille wrote:
> > And you do the same thing again; you dismiss the need factor.
>
> Of course there is a need. It's the primary mechanism that keeps Bitcoin
> secure and immune from malicious influence.
I see a pretty big problem if this really is your insight, the need an
individual has for running a node is a completely different concept than the
need for nodes to exist. And, really, you are describing miners, not nodes.
good thing is that you seem to agree with me as your continue with;
> Of course not everyone needs to run a node.
Thats the 'need' I was talking about.
As we concluded in our previous email, the need to run a node is inversely
proportional to the ability (or willingness) to trust others.
And lets face it, practically everyone trusts others with their money today.
> But that leaves the
> responsibility on us - the community - to help the situation by not making
> it too hard to run a node. And I see the block size as the primary way
> through which we do that.
That won't really have any influence, economics 101 says that it doesn't work
that way. Lowering the cost on a product won't make it sell more without the
people wanting or needing the product.
> If the impact of the system goes u[p], so should the - joint - incentives to
> keep it secure. And I think we're (slowly) failing at that.
That is your opinion. At least, I don't see that conclusion supported by
evidence.
I'll defer to Gavins emails that countered this point better.
--
Thomas Zander
Thomas Zander [ARCHIVE] /
npub1du…vyg93
2023-06-07 15:45:34
in reply to nevent1q…p65t
Author Public Key
npub1du3xh5wgds32a5fweqkd9k45kh30wl7kv2kyu8ugz9c2ztdg00tqqvyg93Published at
2023-06-07 15:45:34Event JSON
{
"id": "f84c4b6adc8a84f552654db58ba41ae8b68268cead1d121ffa15742aadc47386",
"pubkey": "6f226bd1c86c22aed12ec82cd2dab4b5e2f77fd662ac4e1f881170a12da87bd6",
"created_at": 1686152734,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"50c911df082783911027ab79f3fd32f039fbc37c0ccd368cea5a4f38710a1714",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"935fddb1532e7b6da45fca6d4190c9d9a42313d5b06a0e7103c650d11b54f6e0",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"5cb21bf5d7f25a9d46879713cbd32433bbc10e40ef813a3c28fe7355f49854d6"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2015-08-07\n📝 Original message:On Friday 7. August 2015 19.09.30 Pieter Wuille wrote:\n\u003e \u003e And you do the same thing again; you dismiss the need factor.\n\u003e \n\u003e Of course there is a need. It's the primary mechanism that keeps Bitcoin\n\u003e secure and immune from malicious influence.\n\nI see a pretty big problem if this really is your insight, the need an \nindividual has for running a node is a completely different concept than the \nneed for nodes to exist. And, really, you are describing miners, not nodes.\n\ngood thing is that you seem to agree with me as your continue with;\n\n\u003e Of course not everyone needs to run a node. \n\nThats the 'need' I was talking about.\nAs we concluded in our previous email, the need to run a node is inversely \nproportional to the ability (or willingness) to trust others.\nAnd lets face it, practically everyone trusts others with their money today.\n\n\n\u003e But that leaves the\n\u003e responsibility on us - the community - to help the situation by not making\n\u003e it too hard to run a node. And I see the block size as the primary way\n\u003e through which we do that.\n\nThat won't really have any influence, economics 101 says that it doesn't work \nthat way. Lowering the cost on a product won't make it sell more without the \npeople wanting or needing the product.\n\n\u003e If the impact of the system goes u[p], so should the - joint - incentives to\n\u003e keep it secure. And I think we're (slowly) failing at that.\n\nThat is your opinion. At least, I don't see that conclusion supported by \nevidence.\nI'll defer to Gavins emails that countered this point better.\n\n-- \nThomas Zander",
"sig": "e915df8f361aa40c3f5ffdeb14132a595092b54211283eb8152e0760cb5cbac29c35516a7242436cbbb46dfeb218e757c8785ed2c337d6e4b5bbb8f69f0478d3"
}