📅 Original date posted:2011-12-22
🗒️ Summary of this message: In a distributed blockchain setup, miners are the only ones incentivized to do validations, leading to the possibility of super nodes and charging for validations.
📝 Original message:Just adding to Joels comment:
The only one with an incentive to do validations are miners (otherwise they could risk having their mined blocks invalidated later by less lazy miners) and the ones who are to send and accept a transaction. In a distributed stored and validated block chain setup, you would hence need to ask some miners if the inputs to a transaction is valid or download all the chain yourselves.
The latter is what we do today and will not scale, the former is the logical consequence of a non-enforced random validation approach - so this will give us super nodes, namely miners, and at some point they could choose to also charge for the validations. It might be the direction we are moving towards, but then the p2p network is only for the miners and the rest of us can connect through https and use json-rpc to post transactions etc to them. I do, however, prefer a setup where we keep everything really distributed...
/M
On 22/12/2011, at 13:14, Joel Joonatan Kaartinen wrote:
> On Thu, 2011-12-22 at 11:52 +0000, Andy Parkins wrote:
>> Why should they have to? Joining the network as a node is very low cost to
>> the other nodes. You can't force any node not to be lazy, since their option
>> is to disconnect themselves. As to maliciousness, that is defended against
>> because when a node negative announces a transaction, that transaction is
>> going to be checked (note that there is still no implicit trust) -- if a node
>> is incorrectly negative-announcing then it can justifiably be kicked.
>
> a node that is not doing any checking themselves can not reliably
> forward failed verifications without getting the blame for doing faulty
> work. Those nodes would then have the incentive not to relay the failed
> verifications. This ends up making it important to know which nodes will
> be checking transactions or not so you don't isolate yourself from other
> nodes that are also checking transactions.
>
> - Joel
>
Michael Gronager, PhD
Owner Ceptacle / NDGF Director, NORDUnet A/S
Jens Juels Gade 33
2100 Copenhagen E
Mobile: +45 31 62 14 01
E-mail: gronager at ceptacle.com
Michael Grønager [ARCHIVE] /
npub15f…xlq6h
2023-06-07 02:50:48
in reply to nevent1q…ujdd
Author Public Key
npub15fmnxm546tg2sv0l7elusrvqsgezdzdg3m0flpml5fr2qf3f5slskxlq6hPublished at
2023-06-07 02:50:48Event JSON
{
"id": "0cd4baf121d8ed29bb8de6425a9d27ddcf03e73cb957e3e4cb6cae1e0a916d18",
"pubkey": "a277336e95d2d0a831fff67fc80d8082322689a88ede9f877fa246a02629a43f",
"created_at": 1686106248,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"4af0205fae641367dcfd78e02a7a0b6f75f880a1f702affe5d70f7b792eb8207",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"1c5d3ac27ae5e658f00970169f37ef66026d2228f0b0e17c791913cc2e9d82dc",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"72cd40332ec782dd0a7f63acb03e3b6fdafa6d91bd1b6125cd8b7117a1bb8057"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2011-12-22\n🗒️ Summary of this message: In a distributed blockchain setup, miners are the only ones incentivized to do validations, leading to the possibility of super nodes and charging for validations.\n📝 Original message:Just adding to Joels comment:\n\nThe only one with an incentive to do validations are miners (otherwise they could risk having their mined blocks invalidated later by less lazy miners) and the ones who are to send and accept a transaction. In a distributed stored and validated block chain setup, you would hence need to ask some miners if the inputs to a transaction is valid or download all the chain yourselves.\n\nThe latter is what we do today and will not scale, the former is the logical consequence of a non-enforced random validation approach - so this will give us super nodes, namely miners, and at some point they could choose to also charge for the validations. It might be the direction we are moving towards, but then the p2p network is only for the miners and the rest of us can connect through https and use json-rpc to post transactions etc to them. I do, however, prefer a setup where we keep everything really distributed...\n\n/M\n\nOn 22/12/2011, at 13:14, Joel Joonatan Kaartinen wrote:\n\n\u003e On Thu, 2011-12-22 at 11:52 +0000, Andy Parkins wrote:\n\u003e\u003e Why should they have to? Joining the network as a node is very low cost to \n\u003e\u003e the other nodes. You can't force any node not to be lazy, since their option \n\u003e\u003e is to disconnect themselves. As to maliciousness, that is defended against \n\u003e\u003e because when a node negative announces a transaction, that transaction is \n\u003e\u003e going to be checked (note that there is still no implicit trust) -- if a node \n\u003e\u003e is incorrectly negative-announcing then it can justifiably be kicked.\n\u003e \n\u003e a node that is not doing any checking themselves can not reliably\n\u003e forward failed verifications without getting the blame for doing faulty\n\u003e work. Those nodes would then have the incentive not to relay the failed\n\u003e verifications. This ends up making it important to know which nodes will\n\u003e be checking transactions or not so you don't isolate yourself from other\n\u003e nodes that are also checking transactions.\n\u003e \n\u003e - Joel\n\u003e \n\nMichael Gronager, PhD\nOwner Ceptacle / NDGF Director, NORDUnet A/S\nJens Juels Gade 33\n2100 Copenhagen E\nMobile: +45 31 62 14 01\nE-mail: gronager at ceptacle.com",
"sig": "f46cc69149f27404b0edd7aa956c86ff3abb6643833afb541cc221d47d0193078bcfa640651dc2fafee3db7892282ac1546b6f2dea45d2c15b610920214200df"
}