{"type":"rich","version":"1.0","author_name":"npub1tjephawh7fdf6358jufuh5eyxwauzrjqa7qn50pglee4tayc2ntqcjtl6r","author_url":"https://nostr.ae/npub1tjephawh7fdf6358jufuh5eyxwauzrjqa7qn50pglee4tayc2ntqcjtl6r","provider_name":"njump","provider_url":"https://nostr.ae","html":"📅 Original date posted:2015-08-06\n📝 Original message:On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 8:43 PM, Michael Naber \u003cmickeybob at gmail.com\u003e wrote:\n\n\u003e How many nodes are necessary to ensure sufficient network reliability?\n\u003e Ten, a hundred, a thousand? At what point do we hit the point of\n\u003e diminishing returns, where adding extra nodes starts to have negligible\n\u003e impact on the overall reliability of the system?\n\u003e\n\nIt's not about reliability. There are plenty of nodes currently for\nsynchronization and other network functions.\n\nIt's about reduction of trust. Running a full node and using it verify your\ntransactions is how you get personal assurance that everyone on the network\nis following the rules. And if you don't do so yourself, the knowledge that\nothers are using full nodes and relying on them is valuable. Someone just\nrunning 1000 nodes in a data center and not using them for anything does\nnot do anything for this, it's adding network capacity without use.\n\nThat doesn't mean that the full node count (or the reachable full node\ncount even) are meaningless numbers. They are an indication of how hard it\nis (for various reasons) to run/use a full node, and thus provide feedback.\nBut they are not the goal, just an indicator.\n\n-- \nPieter\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150806/5c5defdf/attachment-0001.html\u003e"}