Gregory Maxwell [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2015-07-29 📝 Original message:On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at ...
📅 Original date posted:2015-07-29
📝 Original message:On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 9:59 AM, Mike Hearn via bitcoin-dev
<bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> I do love history lessons from people who weren't actually there.
I doubt the rest of us really enjoy hearing these "lessons" from from
you where you wildly distort history to reflect your views.
> Satoshi explicitly envisioned a future where only miners ran nodes, so it
> had nothing to do with this either.
As others have pointed out-- even if this were true, --- so what?
Many errors were made early on in Bitcoin.
But in this case it's not actually true and I'm really getting fed up
with this continued self-appointment of all that the creator of the
system thought. Your position and knoweldge is not special or
priveleged compared to many of the people that you are arguing with.
It was _well_ understood while the creator of the system was around
that putting every consensus decision into the world into one system
would not scale; and also understood that the users of Bitcoin would
wish to protect its decenteralization by limiting the size of the
chain to keep it verifyable on small devices.
Don't think you can claim otherwise, because doing so is flat out wrong.
In the above statement you're outright backwards-- there was a clear
expectation that all who ran nodes would mine. The delegation of
consensus to third parties was unforseen. Presumably Bitcoin core
making mining inaccessable to users in software was also unforseen.
> Validators validate for themselves. Calculating a local UTXO set and then
> not using it for anything doesn't help anyone. SPV wallets need filtering
> and serving capability, but a computer can filter and serve the chain
> without validating it.
>
> The only purposes non-mining, non-rpc-serving, non-Qt-wallet-sustaining full
> nodes are needed for with today's network are:
[...]
> Outside of serving lightweight P2P wallets there's no purpose in running a
> P2P node if you aren't mining, or using it as a **trusted node for your own
> operations**.
You wrote a long list of activities that are actually irrelevant to
many node users with the result of burrying the main reason any party
should be running a node (emphasis mine).
The incentives of the system demand as it exist today that many other
economically significant parties run nodes in order to keep the half
dozen miners from having a blank check to do whatever they want
(including supporting their operations through inflation)-- do not
think they wouldn't, as we've seen their happy to skip verification
entirely.
(Which, incidentially, is insanely toxic to any security argument for
SPV; ---- and now we see the market failure that results from your and
Gavin years long campaign to ignore problems in the mining ecosystem:
The SPV model which you've fixated on as the true nature of bitcoin
has been demonstrated in practice to have a potentially empty security
claim.)
> Miners who don't validate have a habit of bleeding money: that's the
> system working as designed.
The information I have currently is that the parties engaging in that
activity found it to be tremendously profitable, even including losses
from issues.
Published at
2023-06-07 15:43:52Event JSON
{
"id": "d31efae937d4acdf1a9b6baa84e230a524661e7b5f7f6388d2d9fb1cfb937f81",
"pubkey": "4aa6cf9aa5c8e98f401dac603c6a10207509b6a07317676e9d6615f3d7103d73",
"created_at": 1686152632,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"78a0486a22513a5dc11dcf66d2407a7e121084a44d2ff4e480cb77dad38c8ddd",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"864684480239ffa17a6ad76ffdcc151a1e29234fb05ca89dde5d8b6b54d42939",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"6f226bd1c86c22aed12ec82cd2dab4b5e2f77fd662ac4e1f881170a12da87bd6"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2015-07-29\n📝 Original message:On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 9:59 AM, Mike Hearn via bitcoin-dev\n\u003cbitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e wrote:\n\u003e I do love history lessons from people who weren't actually there.\n\nI doubt the rest of us really enjoy hearing these \"lessons\" from from\nyou where you wildly distort history to reflect your views.\n\n\u003e Satoshi explicitly envisioned a future where only miners ran nodes, so it\n\u003e had nothing to do with this either.\n\nAs others have pointed out-- even if this were true, --- so what?\nMany errors were made early on in Bitcoin.\n\nBut in this case it's not actually true and I'm really getting fed up\nwith this continued self-appointment of all that the creator of the\nsystem thought. Your position and knoweldge is not special or\npriveleged compared to many of the people that you are arguing with.\n\nIt was _well_ understood while the creator of the system was around\nthat putting every consensus decision into the world into one system\nwould not scale; and also understood that the users of Bitcoin would\nwish to protect its decenteralization by limiting the size of the\nchain to keep it verifyable on small devices.\n\nDon't think you can claim otherwise, because doing so is flat out wrong.\n\nIn the above statement you're outright backwards-- there was a clear\nexpectation that all who ran nodes would mine. The delegation of\nconsensus to third parties was unforseen. Presumably Bitcoin core\nmaking mining inaccessable to users in software was also unforseen.\n\n\u003e Validators validate for themselves. Calculating a local UTXO set and then\n\u003e not using it for anything doesn't help anyone. SPV wallets need filtering\n\u003e and serving capability, but a computer can filter and serve the chain\n\u003e without validating it.\n\u003e\n\u003e The only purposes non-mining, non-rpc-serving, non-Qt-wallet-sustaining full\n\u003e nodes are needed for with today's network are:\n[...]\n\u003e Outside of serving lightweight P2P wallets there's no purpose in running a\n\u003e P2P node if you aren't mining, or using it as a **trusted node for your own\n\u003e operations**.\n\nYou wrote a long list of activities that are actually irrelevant to\nmany node users with the result of burrying the main reason any party\nshould be running a node (emphasis mine).\n\nThe incentives of the system demand as it exist today that many other\neconomically significant parties run nodes in order to keep the half\ndozen miners from having a blank check to do whatever they want\n(including supporting their operations through inflation)-- do not\nthink they wouldn't, as we've seen their happy to skip verification\nentirely.\n\n(Which, incidentially, is insanely toxic to any security argument for\nSPV; ---- and now we see the market failure that results from your and\nGavin years long campaign to ignore problems in the mining ecosystem:\nThe SPV model which you've fixated on as the true nature of bitcoin\nhas been demonstrated in practice to have a potentially empty security\nclaim.)\n\n\u003e Miners who don't validate have a habit of bleeding money: that's the\n\u003e system working as designed.\n\nThe information I have currently is that the parties engaging in that\nactivity found it to be tremendously profitable, even including losses\nfrom issues.",
"sig": "1dbdb103c2be4b410be5d106950b79910bb49e70da8d56a575c4bd3cae6b66b4ba88cba9713d52ce35b21ef50fd62da79a0ec2ac5246bb04bb84e632a069f362"
}