📅 Original date posted:2015-08-07
📝 Original message:On Thursday 6. August 2015 20.52.28 Pieter Wuille via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> It's about reduction of trust. Running a full node and using it verify your
> transactions is how you get personal assurance that everyone on the network
> is following the rules. And if you don't do so yourself, the knowledge that
> others are using full nodes and relying on them is valuable. Someone just
> running 1000 nodes in a data center and not using them for anything does
> not do anything for this, it's adding network capacity without use.
>
> That doesn't mean that the full node count (or the reachable full node
> count even) are meaningless numbers. They are an indication of how hard it
> is (for various reasons) to run/use a full node, and thus provide feedback.
> But they are not the goal, just an indicator.
You make a logical fallacy;
I would agree that nodes are there for people to stop trusting someone that
they have no trust-relationship with.
But your conclusion that low node count is an indication that its hard to run
one discards your own point. You forget the point that running a node is only
needed if you don't know anyone you can trust to run it for you. I'm pretty
darn sure that this will have a bigger effect on nodecount than how hard it
is.
Or, in other words, without a need to run a node you can't judge the
difficulty of why there aren't more running.
>From another mail;
On Thursday 6. August 2015 17.26.11 Pieter Wuille via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> Maybe. But I believe that it is essential to not take unnecessary risks,
> and find a non-controversial solution.
This is a very political answer; it doesn't actually say anything since
'unnecessary' is a personal judgment. Everyone will agree with you, but that
doesn't mean anything.
--
Tom Zander
Thomas Zander [ARCHIVE] /
npub1du…vyg93
2023-06-07 15:45:32
in reply to nevent1q…ly4v
Author Public Key
npub1du3xh5wgds32a5fweqkd9k45kh30wl7kv2kyu8ugz9c2ztdg00tqqvyg93Published at
2023-06-07 15:45:32Event JSON
{
"id": "650fc9c6195dd2ba98967ef9ecc63fa678a215f75d7d39f74302b9d16bf6ad51",
"pubkey": "6f226bd1c86c22aed12ec82cd2dab4b5e2f77fd662ac4e1f881170a12da87bd6",
"created_at": 1686152732,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"50c911df082783911027ab79f3fd32f039fbc37c0ccd368cea5a4f38710a1714",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"127e5aec53b60ac7a171d1206ba8594b2f0209cbe18a311d9dc16cda1211d641",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"5cb21bf5d7f25a9d46879713cbd32433bbc10e40ef813a3c28fe7355f49854d6"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2015-08-07\n📝 Original message:On Thursday 6. August 2015 20.52.28 Pieter Wuille via bitcoin-dev wrote:\n\u003e It's about reduction of trust. Running a full node and using it verify your\n\u003e transactions is how you get personal assurance that everyone on the network\n\u003e is following the rules. And if you don't do so yourself, the knowledge that\n\u003e others are using full nodes and relying on them is valuable. Someone just\n\u003e running 1000 nodes in a data center and not using them for anything does\n\u003e not do anything for this, it's adding network capacity without use.\n\u003e \n\u003e That doesn't mean that the full node count (or the reachable full node\n\u003e count even) are meaningless numbers. They are an indication of how hard it\n\u003e is (for various reasons) to run/use a full node, and thus provide feedback.\n\u003e But they are not the goal, just an indicator.\n\nYou make a logical fallacy;\n\nI would agree that nodes are there for people to stop trusting someone that \nthey have no trust-relationship with.\n\nBut your conclusion that low node count is an indication that its hard to run \none discards your own point. You forget the point that running a node is only \nneeded if you don't know anyone you can trust to run it for you. I'm pretty \ndarn sure that this will have a bigger effect on nodecount than how hard it \nis.\nOr, in other words, without a need to run a node you can't judge the \ndifficulty of why there aren't more running.\n\n\n\u003eFrom another mail;\nOn Thursday 6. August 2015 17.26.11 Pieter Wuille via bitcoin-dev wrote:\n\u003e Maybe. But I believe that it is essential to not take unnecessary risks,\n\u003e and find a non-controversial solution.\n\nThis is a very political answer; it doesn't actually say anything since \n'unnecessary' is a personal judgment. Everyone will agree with you, but that \ndoesn't mean anything.\n\n-- \nTom Zander",
"sig": "ae2d7bd867108a9ecebdbe4a18956438774572e4d3939c325ec8b80e87819f42a10ad3e5ff9ed1a953224bfc5d84534bcd3e064b56bc5de2ae6d132d9c0ccfee"
}