📅 Original date posted:2015-08-05
📝 Original message:-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512
On 4 August 2015 11:12:36 PM AEST, Gavin Andresen via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>On Tue, Aug 4, 2015 at 7:27 AM, Pieter Wuille via bitcoin-dev <
>bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
>> I would say that things already demonstrately got terrible. The
>mining
>> landscape is very centralized, with apparently a majority depending
>on
>> agreements to trust each other's announced blocks without validation.
>>
>And that is a problem... why?
With all due respect Gavin, large-block advocates appear to hold the position that:
* pushing individual economic actors away from running full nodes is a natural and unproblematic consequence of block size increase, as they're expected to rely on SPV
You now also appear to hold the position that:
* pushing miners to SPV mining is unproblematic
Have I misunderstood? Is one of these not an expected outcome of large blocks? I can understand the validity of either argument alone -- the assertion that we can trust miners to validate and just trust most-POW ourselves, /or/ the assertion that lack of miner validation is safe under certain circumstances. But together?
Who do you expect to actually validate large blocks if not miners, and what do you expect their incentive to do so to be?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: APG v1.1.1
iQFABAEBCgAqBQJVwcYAIxxHYXJldGggV2lsbGlhbXMgPGdhY3J1eEBnbWFpbC5j
b20+AAoJEEY5w2E3jkVEEWQH/Aty47q71H/ZcMMX/6qcTpOumI9h/buUfsvYA2H+
J6Al5S8JvCy3/0yMFCLmqolHoxOdWu5jwtUf/w2fepgA1RJyZItFo1EG9cJB0Cpz
JgM+2s4L/F3l4+Gea2ddjhvE5JqGS0Qh3EWaR/xy1bouq0FZjtDendmK7vFRj/oS
Gowm+g5EFBiT1XwCQQXJc9k0RxzDpPQ0ouSOXWdPUuxfQAjPyX89eQBeQzgVDtEf
zVfROZVHQuBu85rKTd32TdCNLQ0oEhAYmwgdtmJyLLgieeqHmNbaikBaVDEOvixn
S+fmnfD8CVeeXo5zKdlLZXazc5geRx97H4NMBMjTyjPzR5k=
=WG0I
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Gareth Williams [ARCHIVE] /
npub1jk…373ck
2023-06-07 15:44:48
in reply to nevent1q…qurx
Author Public Key
npub1jkdfcglr59lwnhek94l393g0hhhaj0v5yzz3n5s3p0r9u0576sgs7373ckPublished at
2023-06-07 15:44:48Event JSON
{
"id": "e464ecb2ea8a61a2aeef7b327109a7e2449f8e7ce61ba636f907bcfef145e7ca",
"pubkey": "959a9c23e3a17ee9df362d7f12c50fbdefd93d94208519d2110bc65e3e9ed411",
"created_at": 1686152688,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"a4d71ef2ddda9c77f8ea8d885165eb505edf2c401c1a75726495bef91bd64d3b",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"67cc23e7e421c17167f309eab9750e83633169f245577b71f4607c8ad389f9a3",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"78aa6925095b629d95a9e79aed6ed9da0973239bc6eedf11af42240f0e1d755c"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2015-08-05\n📝 Original message:-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----\nHash: SHA512\n\n\n\nOn 4 August 2015 11:12:36 PM AEST, Gavin Andresen via bitcoin-dev \u003cbitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e wrote:\n\u003eOn Tue, Aug 4, 2015 at 7:27 AM, Pieter Wuille via bitcoin-dev \u003c\n\u003ebitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e wrote:\n\u003e\n\u003e\u003e I would say that things already demonstrately got terrible. The\n\u003emining\n\u003e\u003e landscape is very centralized, with apparently a majority depending\n\u003eon\n\u003e\u003e agreements to trust each other's announced blocks without validation.\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003eAnd that is a problem... why?\n\nWith all due respect Gavin, large-block advocates appear to hold the position that:\n* pushing individual economic actors away from running full nodes is a natural and unproblematic consequence of block size increase, as they're expected to rely on SPV\nYou now also appear to hold the position that:\n* pushing miners to SPV mining is unproblematic\n\nHave I misunderstood? Is one of these not an expected outcome of large blocks? I can understand the validity of either argument alone -- the assertion that we can trust miners to validate and just trust most-POW ourselves, /or/ the assertion that lack of miner validation is safe under certain circumstances. But together?\n\nWho do you expect to actually validate large blocks if not miners, and what do you expect their incentive to do so to be?\n\n-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----\nVersion: APG v1.1.1\n\niQFABAEBCgAqBQJVwcYAIxxHYXJldGggV2lsbGlhbXMgPGdhY3J1eEBnbWFpbC5j\nb20+AAoJEEY5w2E3jkVEEWQH/Aty47q71H/ZcMMX/6qcTpOumI9h/buUfsvYA2H+\nJ6Al5S8JvCy3/0yMFCLmqolHoxOdWu5jwtUf/w2fepgA1RJyZItFo1EG9cJB0Cpz\nJgM+2s4L/F3l4+Gea2ddjhvE5JqGS0Qh3EWaR/xy1bouq0FZjtDendmK7vFRj/oS\nGowm+g5EFBiT1XwCQQXJc9k0RxzDpPQ0ouSOXWdPUuxfQAjPyX89eQBeQzgVDtEf\nzVfROZVHQuBu85rKTd32TdCNLQ0oEhAYmwgdtmJyLLgieeqHmNbaikBaVDEOvixn\nS+fmnfD8CVeeXo5zKdlLZXazc5geRx97H4NMBMjTyjPzR5k=\n=WG0I\n-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----",
"sig": "4daacc361fce859768dda6a88500737def5e296349f2f04012cc53359f8ccf5fb16f8b2bb4d1af569488b832f06d77a9e6a25e348ec2fc47727d0c48d6d240ce"
}