📅 Original date posted:2015-03-27
📝 Original message:On Friday, 27 March 2015, at 4:57 pm, Wladimir J. van der Laan wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 11:16:43AM -0400, Matt Whitlock wrote:
> > I agree that someone could do this, but why is that a problem? Isn't the goal of this exercise to ensure more full nodes on the network? In order to be able to answer the challenges, an entity would need to be running a full node somewhere. Thus, they have contributed at least one additional full node to the network. I could certainly see a case for a company to host hundreds of lightweight (e.g., EC2) servers all backed by a single copy of the block chain. Why force every single machine to have its own copy? All you really need to require is that each agency/participant have its own copy.
>
> They would not even have to run one. It could just pass the query to a random other node, and forward its result :)
D'oh. Of course. Thanks. :/
The suggestion about encrypting blocks with a key tied to IP address seems like a bad idea, though. Lots of nodes are on dynamic IP addresses. It wouldn't really be practical to re-encrypt the entire block chain every time a node's IP address changes.
Matt Whitlock [ARCHIVE] /
npub17q…upwet
2023-06-07 15:32:05
in reply to nevent1q…se7v
Author Public Key
npub17qxssk9sj2r7jswvh3y32e7vwz7mcckhz33gk9nurdmw0lhsfkgswupwetSeen on
wss://relay.nostr.bandPublished at
2023-06-07 15:32:05Event JSON
{
"id": "3bd51e4c392382ca814f0e2f5662708892fd11f529b561132ac94973f207060b",
"pubkey": "f00d0858b09287e941ccbc491567cc70bdbc62d714628b167c1b76e7fef04d91",
"created_at": 1686151925,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"aec2e2b18209ddcfa5d1a18863a1af4d14b80da9d7f8b7d06dfabe62f3ba4546",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"71cb6a3913a9970261bcef0664b362f5ee1643bdd85438d02ddb1d3a84cde42a",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"3c7421b6a5b9065ef5ba5b113416bc212a389a58853f668baffb4a8a04f2b35f"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2015-03-27\n📝 Original message:On Friday, 27 March 2015, at 4:57 pm, Wladimir J. van der Laan wrote:\n\u003e On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 11:16:43AM -0400, Matt Whitlock wrote:\n\u003e \u003e I agree that someone could do this, but why is that a problem? Isn't the goal of this exercise to ensure more full nodes on the network? In order to be able to answer the challenges, an entity would need to be running a full node somewhere. Thus, they have contributed at least one additional full node to the network. I could certainly see a case for a company to host hundreds of lightweight (e.g., EC2) servers all backed by a single copy of the block chain. Why force every single machine to have its own copy? All you really need to require is that each agency/participant have its own copy.\n\u003e \n\u003e They would not even have to run one. It could just pass the query to a random other node, and forward its result :)\n\nD'oh. Of course. Thanks. :/\n\nThe suggestion about encrypting blocks with a key tied to IP address seems like a bad idea, though. Lots of nodes are on dynamic IP addresses. It wouldn't really be practical to re-encrypt the entire block chain every time a node's IP address changes.",
"sig": "74f0c3b47b2c7ef83a044816d2f83121028ab1d0534e629521f0c63706d6ec9fcbf77e12f4bbf8456a2ae47ca3b0aa92c6ec2ce66b7703697a3a1ca46fa485fb"
}