📅 Original date posted:2015-06-16
📝 Original message:Just thinking off the top of my head here:
What if SPV wallets were exempt from the fee? Only full nodes would pay
other full nodes when initially sync'ing the blockchain. Then as long as
you keep your full node running for a long period of time, you'll
eventually make back the cost you paid to sync initially. This at least
incentives full node operators to keep their node running for as long as
possible once started.
This still imposes a worse UX on casual users who want full node security,
but don't want to run a server 24/7 (or perhaps simply aren't aware that
they have to). These users will watch their balance wither away each time
they open their wallet, but it would be very difficult to explain to them
why that is happening. It would just be frustrating and confusing.
Also, what happens when a user runs Bitcoin-QT for the first time after
downloading it to try it out? They wouldn't be able to sync the blockchain.
Even if the wallet has a balance, how would the wallet be able to see that
it has UTXO's without the ability to sync with the network for free?
On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 8:49 PM, Kevin Greene <kgreenek at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 8:41 PM, Luke Dashjr <luke at dashjr.org> wrote:
>
>> On Tuesday, June 16, 2015 3:30:44 AM Kevin Greene wrote:
>> > Would SPV wallets have to pay to connect to the network too? From the
>> > user's perspective, it would be somewhat upsetting (and confusing) to
>> see
>> > your balance slowly draining every time you open your wallet app. It
>> would
>> > also tie up outputs every time you open up your wallet. You may go to
>> pay
>> > for something in a coffee shop, only to find that you can't spend your
>> > bitcoin because the wallet had to create a transaction to pay to sync
>> with
>> > the network.
>> >
>> > Also, users of centralized wallet services like Coinbase would not have
>> to
>> > pay that fee; but users of native wallets like breadwallet would have no
>> > such option. This incentivizes users to use centralized wallets.
>> >
>> > So this is kind of imposing a worse user experience on users who want to
>> > use bitcoin the "right" way. That doesn't seem like a good thing to me
>> :/
>>
>> SPV isn't the "right" way either ;)
>>
>
> Hah, fair enough, there is no such thing as the "right" way to do
> anything. But I still think punishing users who use SPV wallets is a
> less-than-ideal way to incentive people to run full nodes. Right now SPV is
> the best way that exists for mobile phones to participate in the network in
> a decentralized way. This proposal makes the user experience for mobile
> wallets a little more confusing and annoying.
>
>
>>
>> If you're running a full node (the real "right way"), you should be able
>> to
>> earn more bitcoins than you pay out.
>>
>> Luke
>>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150615/6dfa5428/attachment.html>;
Kevin Greene [ARCHIVE] /
npub1l3…hwq5p
2023-06-07 15:38:06
in reply to nevent1q…f5fl
Author Public Key
npub1l3sj8amnurgf3cu3p2hhcaham90khafc4vgsmymqdnn0k3kanulsghwq5pPublished at
2023-06-07 15:38:06Event JSON
{
"id": "49210bb72f9444202bc8cb464453aee8b297f45ba549af289da016488cd245d1",
"pubkey": "fc6123f773e0d098e3910aaf7c76fdd95f6bf538ab110d93606ce6fb46dd9f3f",
"created_at": 1686152286,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"2b91c85241583e32234ccb8fc6e0be41a139659abeab8f01ad008fe47e789073",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"d77d42583d3418d29008d0b01c17abb60e28be731312fec97056cb8132a9bbae",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"fc6123f773e0d098e3910aaf7c76fdd95f6bf538ab110d93606ce6fb46dd9f3f"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2015-06-16\n📝 Original message:Just thinking off the top of my head here:\n\nWhat if SPV wallets were exempt from the fee? Only full nodes would pay\nother full nodes when initially sync'ing the blockchain. Then as long as\nyou keep your full node running for a long period of time, you'll\neventually make back the cost you paid to sync initially. This at least\nincentives full node operators to keep their node running for as long as\npossible once started.\n\nThis still imposes a worse UX on casual users who want full node security,\nbut don't want to run a server 24/7 (or perhaps simply aren't aware that\nthey have to). These users will watch their balance wither away each time\nthey open their wallet, but it would be very difficult to explain to them\nwhy that is happening. It would just be frustrating and confusing.\n\nAlso, what happens when a user runs Bitcoin-QT for the first time after\ndownloading it to try it out? They wouldn't be able to sync the blockchain.\nEven if the wallet has a balance, how would the wallet be able to see that\nit has UTXO's without the ability to sync with the network for free?\n\n\nOn Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 8:49 PM, Kevin Greene \u003ckgreenek at gmail.com\u003e wrote:\n\n\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 8:41 PM, Luke Dashjr \u003cluke at dashjr.org\u003e wrote:\n\u003e\n\u003e\u003e On Tuesday, June 16, 2015 3:30:44 AM Kevin Greene wrote:\n\u003e\u003e \u003e Would SPV wallets have to pay to connect to the network too? From the\n\u003e\u003e \u003e user's perspective, it would be somewhat upsetting (and confusing) to\n\u003e\u003e see\n\u003e\u003e \u003e your balance slowly draining every time you open your wallet app. It\n\u003e\u003e would\n\u003e\u003e \u003e also tie up outputs every time you open up your wallet. You may go to\n\u003e\u003e pay\n\u003e\u003e \u003e for something in a coffee shop, only to find that you can't spend your\n\u003e\u003e \u003e bitcoin because the wallet had to create a transaction to pay to sync\n\u003e\u003e with\n\u003e\u003e \u003e the network.\n\u003e\u003e \u003e\n\u003e\u003e \u003e Also, users of centralized wallet services like Coinbase would not have\n\u003e\u003e to\n\u003e\u003e \u003e pay that fee; but users of native wallets like breadwallet would have no\n\u003e\u003e \u003e such option. This incentivizes users to use centralized wallets.\n\u003e\u003e \u003e\n\u003e\u003e \u003e So this is kind of imposing a worse user experience on users who want to\n\u003e\u003e \u003e use bitcoin the \"right\" way. That doesn't seem like a good thing to me\n\u003e\u003e :/\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e SPV isn't the \"right\" way either ;)\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e Hah, fair enough, there is no such thing as the \"right\" way to do\n\u003e anything. But I still think punishing users who use SPV wallets is a\n\u003e less-than-ideal way to incentive people to run full nodes. Right now SPV is\n\u003e the best way that exists for mobile phones to participate in the network in\n\u003e a decentralized way. This proposal makes the user experience for mobile\n\u003e wallets a little more confusing and annoying.\n\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e If you're running a full node (the real \"right way\"), you should be able\n\u003e\u003e to\n\u003e\u003e earn more bitcoins than you pay out.\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e Luke\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150615/6dfa5428/attachment.html\u003e",
"sig": "b6d6d683187228080ffa4b91d99b1e1a2f973f3f08a7d470cac235faa55301102b299012f037853ddbfbdf2e612dc8ec118864f14afc4180d07f906e7f34f569"
}