Re: [Bitcoin-development] Incentivizing the running of full nodes

2014-06-17 Thread Odinn Cyberguerrilla
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > On 06/16/2014 07:00 PM, Justus Ranvier wrote: >> There can be multiple independent transport networks for Bitcoin. >> >> There already is: ipv4, ipv6, Tor, and native_i2p (out of tree >> patch). >> >> As long as multihomed hosts that act as brid

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Incentivizing the running of full nodes

2014-06-16 Thread Justus Ranvier
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 06/16/2014 07:00 PM, Justus Ranvier wrote: > There can be multiple independent transport networks for Bitcoin. > > There already is: ipv4, ipv6, Tor, and native_i2p (out of tree > patch). > > As long as multihomed hosts that act as bridges then in

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Incentivizing the running of full nodes

2014-06-16 Thread Justus Ranvier
- Original Message - From: Matt Whitlock Sent: 2014/06/16 - 13:10 To: Mike Hearn , Justus Ranvier Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Incentivizing the running of full nodes > On Monday, 16 June 2014, at 7:59 pm, Mike Hearn wrote: >> > >> > This is a cool idea, but doe

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Incentivizing the running of full nodes

2014-06-16 Thread Matt Whitlock
On Monday, 16 June 2014, at 7:59 pm, Mike Hearn wrote: > > > > This is a cool idea, but doesn't it generate some perverse incentives? If > > I'm running a full node and I want to pay CheapAir for some plane tickets, > > I'll want to pay in the greatest number of individual transactions possible >

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Incentivizing the running of full nodes

2014-06-16 Thread Mike Hearn
> > This is a cool idea, but doesn't it generate some perverse incentives? If > I'm running a full node and I want to pay CheapAir for some plane tickets, > I'll want to pay in the greatest number of individual transactions possible Peers can calculate rewards based on number of inputs or total k

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Incentivizing the running of full nodes

2014-06-16 Thread Matt Whitlock
On Monday, 16 June 2014, at 5:07 pm, Justus Ranvier wrote: > On 06/16/2014 04:25 PM, Matt Whitlock wrote: > > How can there be any kind of lottery that doesn't involve proof of > > work or proof of stake? Without some resource-limiting factor, > > there is no way to limit the number of "lottery tic

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Incentivizing the running of full nodes

2014-06-16 Thread Justus Ranvier
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 06/16/2014 04:25 PM, Matt Whitlock wrote: > How can there be any kind of lottery that doesn't involve proof of > work or proof of stake? Without some resource-limiting factor, > there is no way to limit the number of "lottery tickets" any given > in

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Incentivizing the running of full nodes

2014-06-16 Thread Matt Whitlock
How can there be any kind of lottery that doesn't involve proof of work or proof of stake? Without some resource-limiting factor, there is no way to limit the number of "lottery tickets" any given individual could acquire. The very process of Bitcoin mining was invented specifically to overcome

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Incentivizing the running of full nodes

2014-06-16 Thread Mike Hearn
Hi Odinn, I think trying to incentivise nodes with money is tricky: it makes intuitive sense but right now the market is flooded with supply relative to demand. Yes, we worry about the falling number of nodes, but that's for reasons that aren't really economic: the more nodes we have, the bigger a

[Bitcoin-development] Incentivizing the running of full nodes

2014-06-16 Thread Odinn Cyberguerrilla
I have been noticing for some time the problem which Mike H. identified as how we are bleeding nodes ~ losing nodes over time. This link was referenced in the coindesk article of May 9, 2014: http://sourceforge.net/p/bitcoin/mailman/bitcoin-development/thread/CANEZrP2rgiQHpekEpFviJ22QsiV%2Bs-F2pq