Re: [Bitcoin-development] The Bitcoin Node Market
On 2015-06-16 07:55, Aaron Voisine wrote: Suppose a billion mobile phones wanted to run SPV wallets tomorrow. Who would provide the nodes they would need connect to? The SPV wallet author would if they wanted their wallet to function. How will the SPV wallet users pay for this service? With their money, or with their privacy? -- ___ Bitcoin-development mailing list Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
Re: [Bitcoin-development] The Bitcoin Node Market
Suppose a billion mobile phones wanted to run SPV wallets tomorrow. Who would provide the nodes they would need connect to? The SPV wallet author would if they wanted their wallet to function. Aaron Voisine co-founder and CEO breadwallet.com On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 10:28 PM, justusranv...@riseup.net wrote: On 2015-06-16 03:49, Kevin Greene wrote: 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. Suppose a billion mobile phones wanted to run SPV wallets tomorrow. Who would provide the nodes they would need connect to? The decentralization fairy? There's absolutely no reason that paying for connectivity would be any more confusing or annoying than transaction fees are. If some full nodes in the network started offering paid connection slots, that would just mean that users who checked the pay subscription fee box in their wallet configuration would have an easier time connecting than the users who did't, just like how your transaction might eventually get mined without a fee but paying one makes it faster and more probable. -- ___ Bitcoin-development mailing list Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development -- ___ Bitcoin-development mailing list Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
Re: [Bitcoin-development] The Bitcoin Node Market
Would SPV wallets have to pay to connect to the network too? The cost to compute and deliver the requested data will be pushed to the users of that node. This is the same way all costs, fees, and taxes of any business are always paid by its customers. The Bitcoin Network will not thrive in a decentralised manner if nodes can only be run on the charity of the wealthy. That said, node operators can set fees to lower impact on SPV wallets if they so desire. Market efficiency will ensure everyone pays only what they cost the Network in the long run. Also, users of centralized wallet services like Coinbase would not have to pay that fee Coinbase would pay to access nodes just like everyone else, to cover the costs they impose on the Network. Those costs would be covered by their customers, as are all costs incurred by any business. On 15 Jun 2015 8:50 pm, Kevin Greene kgree...@gmail.com wrote:On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 8:41 PM, Luke Dashjr luke@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 users 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 cant 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 doesnt seem like a good thing to me :/ SPV isnt 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 youre running a full node (the real right way), you should be able to earn more bitcoins than you pay out. Luke -- ___ Bitcoin-development mailing list Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
Re: [Bitcoin-development] The Bitcoin Node Market
On 2015-06-16 03:49, Kevin Greene wrote: 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. Suppose a billion mobile phones wanted to run SPV wallets tomorrow. Who would provide the nodes they would need connect to? The decentralization fairy? There's absolutely no reason that paying for connectivity would be any more confusing or annoying than transaction fees are. If some full nodes in the network started offering paid connection slots, that would just mean that users who checked the pay subscription fee box in their wallet configuration would have an easier time connecting than the users who did't, just like how your transaction might eventually get mined without a fee but paying one makes it faster and more probable. -- ___ Bitcoin-development mailing list Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
Re: [Bitcoin-development] The Bitcoin Node Market
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 :/ On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 1:12 PM, sick...@gmail.com sick...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Raystonn On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 9:36 PM, Raystonn . rayst...@hotmail.com wrote: I am only partially through the content at the below link, and I am very impressed. Has Justus Ranvier began work on implementation of the ideas contained therein? I don't know if he or someone else has begun writing code to implement what was described in the liked post, but I'm sure he will reply to you since he's subscribed to this mailing list. From: sick...@gmail.com Sent: Monday, June 15, 2015 12:18 PM To: Raystonn . Cc: Bitcoin Dev Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] The Bitcoin Node Market Sorry for top posting and the brevity but I'm typing from my phone You shoud be interested in this post by Justus Ranvier then: https://bitcoinism.liberty.me/economic-fallacies-and-the-block-size-limit-part-2-price-discovery/ On Jun 15, 2015 8:57 PM, Raystonn . rayst...@hotmail.com wrote: I have been toying with an idea and figured I'd run it by everyone here before investing further time in it. The goal here is to make it sustainable, and perhaps profitable, to run full nodes on the Bitcoin Network in the long term. - Nodes can participate in a market wherein they are paid by nodes, wallets, and other services to supply Bitcoin Network data. Payment should be based on the cost imposed on the Node to do the work and send the data, but can be set in any way the node operator desires. It's a free market. - Nodes that are mostly leeching data from the Bitcoin Network, such as those that do not receive inbound connections to port 8333, will send payments to the nodes they connect to, but will likely receive no payments from other nodes, wallets, and other services. - Nodes that are providing balanced full service to the Bitcoin Network will tend to have a balance of payments coming in and going out with regards to other balanced full service nodes, leaving them revenue neutral there. But they will receive payments from leech nodes, wallets, and other services. The net effect here is that the cost to run nodes will be shared by those who are using the Bitcoin network but not contributing by running a full node. A market will develop for fees to connect to the Bitcoin Network which should help cover the cost of running the Network. It's still possible to continue offering access to your node for free as there is nothing forcing you to charge a fee. But this isn't very sustainable long-run. Market efficiencies should eventually mean nodes take in only what is required to keep the Network operational. Raystonn -- ___ Bitcoin-development mailing list Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development -- ___ Bitcoin-development mailing list Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development -- ___ Bitcoin-development mailing list Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
Re: [Bitcoin-development] The Bitcoin Node Market
On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 8:41 PM, Luke Dashjr l...@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 -- ___ Bitcoin-development mailing list Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
Re: [Bitcoin-development] The Bitcoin Node Market
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 ;) If you're running a full node (the real right way), you should be able to earn more bitcoins than you pay out. Luke -- ___ Bitcoin-development mailing list Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
Re: [Bitcoin-development] The Bitcoin Node Market
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 kgree...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 8:41 PM, Luke Dashjr l...@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 -- ___ Bitcoin-development mailing list Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
Re: [Bitcoin-development] The Bitcoin Node Market
No,Bitcoin 发自我的 iPhone 在 2015年6月16日，13:28，justusranv...@riseup.net 写道： On 2015-06-16 03:49, Kevin Greene wrote: 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. Suppose a billion mobile phones wanted to run SPV wallets tomorrow. Who would provide the nodes they would need connect to? The decentralization fairy? There's absolutely no reason that paying for connectivity would be any more confusing or annoying than transaction fees are. If some full nodes in the network started offering paid connection slots, that would just mean that users who checked the pay subscription fee box in their wallet configuration would have an easier time connecting than the users who did't, just like how your transaction might eventually get mined without a fee but paying one makes it faster and more probable. -- ___ Bitcoin-development mailing list Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinf -- ___ Bitcoin-development mailing list Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
[Bitcoin-development] The Bitcoin Node Market
I have been toying with an idea and figured I'd run it by everyone here before investing further time in it. The goal here is to make it sustainable, and perhaps profitable, to run full nodes on the Bitcoin Network in the long term. - Nodes can participate in a market wherein they are paid by nodes, wallets, and other services to supply Bitcoin Network data. Payment should be based on the cost imposed on the Node to do the work and send the data, but can be set in any way the node operator desires. It's a free market. - Nodes that are mostly leeching data from the Bitcoin Network, such as those that do not receive inbound connections to port 8333, will send payments to the nodes they connect to, but will likely receive no payments from other nodes, wallets, and other services. - Nodes that are providing balanced full service to the Bitcoin Network will tend to have a balance of payments coming in and going out with regards to other balanced full service nodes, leaving them revenue neutral there. But they will receive payments from leech nodes, wallets, and other services. The net effect here is that the cost to run nodes will be shared by those who are using the Bitcoin network but not contributing by running a full node. A market will develop for fees to connect to the Bitcoin Network which should help cover the cost of running the Network. It's still possible to continue offering access to your node for free as there is nothing forcing you to charge a fee. But this isn't very sustainable long-run. Market efficiencies should eventually mean nodes take in only what is required to keep the Network operational. Raystonn -- ___ Bitcoin-development mailing list Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
