{"type":"rich","version":"1.0","author_name":"npub1lf5jdpupmcelz945y09tzawew6pqs5wkkp6dppeujgxxnqltgufsmzuul6","author_url":"https://nostr.ae/npub1lf5jdpupmcelz945y09tzawew6pqs5wkkp6dppeujgxxnqltgufsmzuul6","provider_name":"njump","provider_url":"https://nostr.ae","html":"📅 Original date posted:2017-03-29\n📝 Original message:I believe that as we continue to add users to the system by scaling\ncapacity that we will see more new nodes appear, but I'm at a bit of a loss\nas to how to empirically prove it.\n\nI do see your point on increasing load on archival nodes, but the majority\nof that load is going to come from new nodes coming online, they're the\nonly ones going after very old blocks.   I could see that as a potential\nattack vector, overwhelm the archival nodes by spinning up new nodes\nconstantly, therefore making it difficult for a \"real\" new node to get up\nto speed in a reasonable amount of time.\n\nPerhaps the answer there would be a way to pay an archival node a small\namount of bitcoin in order to retrieve blocks older than a certain cutoff?\nInclude an IP address for the node asking for the data as metadata in the\ntransaction...  Archival nodes could set and publish their own policy, let\nthe market decide what those older blocks are worth.  Would also help to\nincentivize running archival node, which we do need.  Of course, this isn't\nvery user friendly.\n\nWe can take this to bitcoin-discuss, if we're getting too far off topic.\n\n\nOn Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 11:25 AM David Vorick \u003cdavid.vorick at gmail.com\u003e\nwrote:\n\n\u003e\n\u003e On Mar 29, 2017 12:20 PM, \"Andrew Johnson\" \u003candrew.johnson83 at gmail.com\u003e\n\u003e wrote:\n\u003e\n\u003e What's stopping these users from running a pruned node?  Not every node\n\u003e needs to store a complete copy of the blockchain.\n\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e Pruned nodes are not the default configuration, if it was the default\n\u003e configuration then I think you would see far more users running a pruned\n\u003e node.\n\u003e\n\u003e But that would also substantially increase the burden on archive nodes.\n\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e Further discussion about disk space requirements should be taken to\n\u003e another thread.\n\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e --\nAndrew Johnson\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20170329/9b48ebe3/attachment-0001.html\u003e"}