📅 Original date posted:2015-07-23
📝 Original message:On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 9:52 PM, Jameson Lopp via bitcoin-dev
<bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> Running a node certainly has real-world costs that shouldn't be ignored.
> There are plenty of advocates who argue that Bitcoin should strive to keep
> it feasible for the average user to run their own node (as opposed to
> Satoshi's vision of beefy servers in data centers.) My impression is that
> even most of these advocates agree that it will be acceptable to eventually
> increase block sizes as resources become faster and cheaper because it won't
> be 'pricing out' the average user from running their own node. If this is
> the case, it seems to me that we have a problem given that there is no
> established baseline for the acceptable performance / hardware cost
> requirements to run a node. I'd really like to see further clarification
> from these advocates around the acceptable cost of running a node and how we
> can measure the global reduction in hardware and bandwidth costs in order to
> establish a baseline that we can use to justify additional resource usage by
> nodes.
Although I don't have a concrete proposals myself, I agree that
without having any common notion of what the "minimal target hardware"
looks like, it is very difficult to discuss other things that depend
on that.
If there's data that shows that a 100 usd raspberry pi with a 1 MB
connection in say, India (I actually have no idea about internet
speeds there) size X is a viable full node, then I don't think anybody
can reasonably oppose to rising the block size to X, and such a
hardfork can perfectly be uncontroversial.
I'm exaggerating ultra-low specifications, but it's just an example to
illustrate your point.
There was a thread about formalizing such "minimum hardware
requirements", but I think the discussion simply finished there:
- Let's do this
- Yeah, let's do it
- +1, let's have concrete values, I generally agree.
Jorge Timón [ARCHIVE] /
npub1fx…cl2d8
2023-06-07 15:42:55
in reply to nevent1q…j2kc
Author Public Key
npub1fx98zxt3lzspjs5f4msr0fxysx5euucm29ghysryju7vpc9j0jzqtcl2d8Published at
2023-06-07 15:42:55Event JSON
{
"id": "c776ed04a0e55d3f3dcb8c9991627d02e5d35f5b455fc2074cd080eeff55a8c2",
"pubkey": "498a711971f8a0194289aee037a4c481a99e731b5151724064973cc0e0b27c84",
"created_at": 1686152575,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"95a36d78d6bf18f4b8ede735f044f5cc9630ae9f0b1198d008835777ff84eede",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"43c60723bdccae304ccfc722788f40588426cc3c57e4a165921bea84ff51c2ad",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"45d091c7bcdbb8674dc8b91c60f7323053ab1432c4c882fd2d9897fe502eebed"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2015-07-23\n📝 Original message:On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 9:52 PM, Jameson Lopp via bitcoin-dev\n\u003cbitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e wrote:\n\u003e Running a node certainly has real-world costs that shouldn't be ignored.\n\u003e There are plenty of advocates who argue that Bitcoin should strive to keep\n\u003e it feasible for the average user to run their own node (as opposed to\n\u003e Satoshi's vision of beefy servers in data centers.) My impression is that\n\u003e even most of these advocates agree that it will be acceptable to eventually\n\u003e increase block sizes as resources become faster and cheaper because it won't\n\u003e be 'pricing out' the average user from running their own node. If this is\n\u003e the case, it seems to me that we have a problem given that there is no\n\u003e established baseline for the acceptable performance / hardware cost\n\u003e requirements to run a node. I'd really like to see further clarification\n\u003e from these advocates around the acceptable cost of running a node and how we\n\u003e can measure the global reduction in hardware and bandwidth costs in order to\n\u003e establish a baseline that we can use to justify additional resource usage by\n\u003e nodes.\n\nAlthough I don't have a concrete proposals myself, I agree that\nwithout having any common notion of what the \"minimal target hardware\"\nlooks like, it is very difficult to discuss other things that depend\non that.\nIf there's data that shows that a 100 usd raspberry pi with a 1 MB\nconnection in say, India (I actually have no idea about internet\nspeeds there) size X is a viable full node, then I don't think anybody\ncan reasonably oppose to rising the block size to X, and such a\nhardfork can perfectly be uncontroversial.\nI'm exaggerating ultra-low specifications, but it's just an example to\nillustrate your point.\nThere was a thread about formalizing such \"minimum hardware\nrequirements\", but I think the discussion simply finished there:\n- Let's do this\n- Yeah, let's do it\n- +1, let's have concrete values, I generally agree.",
"sig": "ee62c9083aab80d6129902ed607dc1f8343f9e103b71e88bb09ceb81490edd367fb2953fbffffec679e427e3ff33c5dbd438a61a220c0ada6036860cbda71e45"
}