Re: The Bitcoin Node Market

Re: The Bitcoin Node Market
2015-06-15 18:14                   ` Adam Back

  2015-06-15 19:18                       ` sickpig
  
From: Raystonn . @ 2015-06-15 18:57 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Bitcoin Dev

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




 permalink raw reply	[|nested]
2015-06-15 18:57                     ` [Bitcoin-development] The Bitcoin Node Market Raystonn .

  2015-06-15 19:36                         ` Raystonn .
  
From: sickpig @ 2015-06-15 19:18 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Raystonn .;  Bitcoin Dev

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2298 bytes --]

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 ." <raystonn@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
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2992 bytes --]

 permalink raw reply	[|nested]
2015-06-15 19:18                       ` sickpig

  2015-06-15 20:12                           ` sickpig
  
From: Raystonn . @ 2015-06-15 19:36 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: sickpig;  Bitcoin Dev

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2658 bytes --]

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?


From: sickpig@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 ." <raystonn@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

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 4372 bytes --]

 permalink raw reply	[|nested]
2015-06-15 19:36                         ` Raystonn .

  2015-06-16  3:30                             ` Kevin Greene
  
From: sickpig @ 2015-06-15 20:12 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Raystonn .;  Bitcoin Dev

Hi Raystonn

On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 9:36 PM, Raystonn . <raystonn@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: sickpig@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 ." <raystonn@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



 permalink raw reply	[|nested]
2015-06-15 20:12                           ` sickpig

  2015-06-16  3:41                               ` Luke Dashjr
  
From: Kevin Greene @ 2015-06-16  3:30 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: sickpig;  Bitcoin Dev

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4280 bytes --]

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, sickpig@gmail•com <sickpig@gmail•com>
wrote:

> Hi Raystonn
>
> On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 9:36 PM, Raystonn . <raystonn@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: sickpig@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 ." <raystonn@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
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 6122 bytes --]

 permalink raw reply	[|nested]
2015-06-16  3:30                             ` Kevin Greene

  2015-06-16  3:49                                 ` Kevin Greene
  
From: Luke Dashjr @ 2015-06-16  3:41 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: bitcoin-development

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



 permalink raw reply	[|nested]
2015-06-16  3:41                               ` Luke Dashjr

  2015-06-16  4:05                                   ` Kevin Greene
                                                     ` (2 more replies)
  
From: Kevin Greene @ 2015-06-16  3:49 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Luke Dashjr;  Bitcoin Dev

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1628 bytes --]

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
> > 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
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2394 bytes --]

 permalink raw reply	[|nested]
2015-06-16  3:49                                 ` Kevin Greene

  2015-06-16  4:12                                   ` Aaron Voisine
  2015-06-16  5:28                                   ` justusranvier
  
From: Kevin Greene @ 2015-06-16  4:05 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Luke Dashjr;  Bitcoin Dev

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2881 bytes --]

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@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
>> > 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
>>
>
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 4337 bytes --]

 permalink raw reply	[|nested]
2015-06-16  3:49                                 ` Kevin Greene
  2015-06-16  4:05                                   ` Kevin Greene

  2015-06-16  5:28                                   ` justusranvier
  
From: Aaron Voisine @ 2015-06-16  4:12 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Kevin Greene;  Bitcoin Dev

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2452 bytes --]

We're planning to run our own full nodes to take load off the volunteer
network as breadwallet use increases, and also contribute any SPV serving
performance optimizations we can make to bitcoin-core. Just want to let
people know we share these concerns and have plans to mitigate any negative
impact on the network.


Aaron Voisine
co-founder and CEO
breadwallet.com

On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 8:49 PM, Kevin Greene <kgreenek@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
>> > 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
>
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 3829 bytes --]

 permalink raw reply	[|nested]
From: Raystonn @ 2015-06-16  4:38 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Kevin Greene;  Bitcoin Dev

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/html, Size: 3446 bytes --]

 permalink raw reply	[|nested]
2015-06-16  3:49                                 ` Kevin Greene
  2015-06-16  4:05                                   ` Kevin Greene
  2015-06-16  4:12                                   ` Aaron Voisine

  2015-06-16  5:30                                     ` Potter QQ
  2015-06-16  7:55                                     ` Aaron Voisine
  
From: justusranvier @ 2015-06-16  5:28 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Kevin Greene;  Bitcoin Dev

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.



 permalink raw reply	[|nested]
2015-06-16  5:28                                   ` justusranvier

  2015-06-16  7:55                                     ` Aaron Voisine
  
From: Potter QQ @ 2015-06-16  5:30 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: justusranvier;  Bitcoin Dev

No,Bitcoin 


发自我的 iPhone

> 在 2015年6月16日，13:28，justusranvier@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



 permalink raw reply	[|nested]
2015-06-16  5:28                                   ` justusranvier
  2015-06-16  5:30                                     ` Potter QQ

  2015-06-16 13:32                                       ` justusranvier
  2015-06-16 15:52                                       ` devrandom
  
From: Aaron Voisine @ 2015-06-16  7:55 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Justus Ranvier;  Bitcoin Dev

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1800 bytes --]

> 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, <justusranvier@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
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2955 bytes --]

 permalink raw reply	[|nested]
2015-06-16  7:55                                     ` Aaron Voisine

  2015-06-16 17:04                                         ` Aaron Voisine
  2015-06-16 17:22                                         ` Aaron Voisine
  2015-06-16 15:52                                       ` devrandom
  
From: justusranvier @ 2015-06-16 13:32 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Aaron Voisine;  Bitcoin Dev

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?



 permalink raw reply	[|nested]
2015-06-16  7:55                                     ` Aaron Voisine
  2015-06-16 13:32                                       ` justusranvier

  
From: devrandom @ 2015-06-16 15:52 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Aaron Voisine, Justus Ranvier;  Bitcoin Dev

On 2015-06-16 12:55 AM, 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.

I would also guess that the cost to provide service to SPV wallets is
less than $0.01/mo per wallet and in any case less than long-term
transaction fees.  This can either be taken up by the wallet author or
transparently through a payment channel by the user.

> 
> 
> Aaron Voisine
> co-founder and CEO
> breadwallet.com <http://breadwallet.com>

-- 
devrandom / Miron



 permalink raw reply	[|nested]
2015-06-16 13:32                                       ` justusranvier

  2015-06-16 17:22                                         ` Aaron Voisine
  
From: Aaron Voisine @ 2015-06-16 17:04 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: justusranvier;  Bitcoin Dev

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 631 bytes --]

With their money, if they were to take advantage of optional additional
financial services, like, as one example, comsumer protection insurance.

Aaron

On Tuesday, June 16, 2015, <justusranvier@riseup•net> wrote:

> 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?
>


-- 

Aaron Voisine
co-founder and CEO
breadwallet.com

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1232 bytes --]

 permalink raw reply	[|nested]
2015-06-16 13:32                                       ` justusranvier
  2015-06-16 17:04                                         ` Aaron Voisine

  
From: Aaron Voisine @ 2015-06-16 17:22 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: justusranvier;  Bitcoin Dev

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 745 bytes --]

Alternate funding strategy: With 1billion users, mr roger ver is now among
the worlds first $trillionaires, and he generously donates to the
non-profit organization responsible for both the wildly popular wallet, and
his new found largess.

On Tuesday, June 16, 2015, justusranvier@riseup•net <
justusranvier@riseup•net> wrote:

> 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?
>


-- 

Aaron Voisine
co-founder and CEO
breadwallet.com

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1368 bytes --]

 permalink raw reply	[|nested]