📅 Original date posted:2014-04-09
📝 Original message:On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 11:58 AM, Justus Ranvier <justusranvier at 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.
Gregory Maxwell [ARCHIVE] /
npub1f2…crwet
2023-06-07 15:18:18
in reply to nevent1q…ukkq
Author Public Key
npub1f2nvlx49er5c7sqa43src6ssyp6snd4qwvtkwm5avc2l84cs84esecrwetPublished at
2023-06-07 15:18:18Event JSON
{
"id": "de62ca3218d6de4a74d151084c3818a5169be23d15f9b76e54a92399e0dc39a9",
"pubkey": "4aa6cf9aa5c8e98f401dac603c6a10207509b6a07317676e9d6615f3d7103d73",
"created_at": 1686151098,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"ed99a8ad47eb2c18db74cd3bd79e8fcc6fa95e61654848c6ab9c5bb9f7a7e8bf",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"b531dd3de3296a41dc453e0ca68f2672b029100c82653221f3d530e3449a5ed2",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"b2b39b6f2c86908d3da9f500193abd5757b21cac328f838800a48c4d557c10dd"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2014-04-09\n📝 Original message:On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 11:58 AM, Justus Ranvier \u003cjustusranvier at gmail.com\u003e wrote:\n\u003e Anyone reading the archives of the list will see about triple the\n\u003e number of people independently confirming the resource usage problem\n\u003e than they will see denying it, so I'm not particularly worried.\n\nThe list has open membership, there is no particular qualification or\nbackground required to post here. Optimal use of an information source\nrequires critical reading and understanding the limitations of the\nmedium. Counting comments is usually not a great way to assess\ntechnical considerations on an open public forum. Doubly so because\nthose comments were not actually talking about the same thing I am\ntalking about.\n\nExisting implementations are inefficient in many known ways (and, no\ndoubt, some unknown ones). This list is about developing protocol and\nimplementations including improving their efficiency. When talking\nabout incentives the costs you need to consider are the costs of the\nbest realistic option. As far as I know there is no doubt from anyone\ntechnically experienced that under the current network rules full\nnodes can be operated with vastly less resources than current\nimplementations use, it's just a question of the relatively modest\nimplementation improvements.\n\nWhen you argue that Bitcoin doesn't have the right incentives (and\nthus something??) I retort that the actual resource _requirements_ are\nfor the protocol very low. I gave specific example numbers to enable\ncorrection or clarification if I've said something wrong or\ncontroversial. Pointing out that existing implementations are not that\ncurrently as efficient as the underlying requirements and that some\nlarge number of users do not like the efficiency of existing\nimplementations doesn't tell me anything I disagree with or didn't\nalready know. Whats being discussed around here contributes to\nprioritizing improvements over the existing implementations.\n\nI hope this clarifies something.",
"sig": "a0fcfee48a8044167fc98d967d403356ff77157abe65779ee355f43a736986bf306641208b11a838af1bbac6396829078104aece971cc11e8b22574e18f0ff54"
}