📅 Original date posted:2015-08-07
📝 Original message:On Friday 7. August 2015 18.30.28 Pieter Wuille wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 6:06 PM, Thomas Zander via bitcoin-dev <
> > 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.
>
> I never said it is the only factor that influences node count.
You wrote;
> They are an indication of how hard [node count] is (for various
> reasons) to run/use a full node, and thus provide feedback.
You clearly indicated that node count is an indicator of how hard it is to run
a node.
Thats like saying something is too expensive because we don't sell enough. It
forgets to ask the question of need. Do people want it.
Like in our case the need to run a node in the first place.
> If the incentives for running a node don't weight up against the
> cost/difficulty using a full node yourself for a majority of people in the
> ecosystem, I would argue that there is a problem. As Bitcoin's fundamental
> improvement over other systems is the lack of need for trust, I believe
> that with increased adoption should also come an increased (in absolute
> terms) incentive for people to use a full node. I'm seeing the opposite
> trend, and that is worrying IMHO.
And you do the same thing again; you dismiss the need factor.
Most merchants have no need for a node, most miners don't even want to run one
anymore. Users don't make a significant amount of payments to care.
Any conclusions with regards to difficulty of running a node based on max-
blocksize is speculation without numbers; the only numbers you have is
historical node count, and they don't mean shit because the need has not
grown.
For instance, merchants are told to trust someone like bitpay.
Historical node-count says nothing. Anyone using it for the blocksize debate
is speculating without basis.
--
Thomas Zander
Thomas Zander [ARCHIVE] /
npub1du…vyg93
2023-06-07 15:45:33
in reply to nevent1q…adlg
Author Public Key
npub1du3xh5wgds32a5fweqkd9k45kh30wl7kv2kyu8ugz9c2ztdg00tqqvyg93Published at
2023-06-07 15:45:33Event JSON
{
"id": "4785aab6e44842493ad5b114e475bdee5571ed5f395e869364847b51c84e6387",
"pubkey": "6f226bd1c86c22aed12ec82cd2dab4b5e2f77fd662ac4e1f881170a12da87bd6",
"created_at": 1686152733,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"50c911df082783911027ab79f3fd32f039fbc37c0ccd368cea5a4f38710a1714",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"905273863cccd2b1d692c9f111006a6c29835b3fa0b34c43fe91dcce1bd20d62",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"5cb21bf5d7f25a9d46879713cbd32433bbc10e40ef813a3c28fe7355f49854d6"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2015-08-07\n📝 Original message:On Friday 7. August 2015 18.30.28 Pieter Wuille wrote:\n\u003e On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 6:06 PM, Thomas Zander via bitcoin-dev \u003c\n\u003e \u003e But your conclusion that low node count is an indication that its hard\n\u003e \u003e to run one discards your own point. You forget the point that running\n\u003e \u003e a node is only needed if you don't know anyone you can trust to run it\n\u003e \u003e for you. I'm pretty darn sure that this will have a bigger effect on\n\u003e \u003e nodecount than how hard it is.\n\u003e \n\u003e I never said it is the only factor that influences node count.\n\nYou wrote;\n\u003e They are an indication of how hard [node count] is (for various \n\u003e reasons) to run/use a full node, and thus provide feedback.\n\nYou clearly indicated that node count is an indicator of how hard it is to run \na node.\nThats like saying something is too expensive because we don't sell enough. It \nforgets to ask the question of need. Do people want it.\n\nLike in our case the need to run a node in the first place.\n\n\n\u003e If the incentives for running a node don't weight up against the\n\u003e cost/difficulty using a full node yourself for a majority of people in the\n\u003e ecosystem, I would argue that there is a problem. As Bitcoin's fundamental\n\u003e improvement over other systems is the lack of need for trust, I believe\n\u003e that with increased adoption should also come an increased (in absolute\n\u003e terms) incentive for people to use a full node. I'm seeing the opposite\n\u003e trend, and that is worrying IMHO.\n\nAnd you do the same thing again; you dismiss the need factor.\n\nMost merchants have no need for a node, most miners don't even want to run one \nanymore. Users don't make a significant amount of payments to care.\n\nAny conclusions with regards to difficulty of running a node based on max-\nblocksize is speculation without numbers; the only numbers you have is \nhistorical node count, and they don't mean shit because the need has not \ngrown.\nFor instance, merchants are told to trust someone like bitpay.\n\n\nHistorical node-count says nothing. Anyone using it for the blocksize debate \nis speculating without basis.\n-- \nThomas Zander",
"sig": "09dbeba51e3a3b75861c8b7e9ccaae27f83d78a7af0afe9ba4b12ed9e4f349d0b300c2062875719d7b9cc77be62ad0f05ccb69b1b2b7ca19882c9c746ac1dfaf"
}