<oembed><type>rich</type><version>1.0</version><author_name>npub1lf5jdpupmcelz945y09tzawew6pqs5wkkp6dppeujgxxnqltgufsmzuul6</author_name><author_url>https://nostr.ae/npub1lf5jdpupmcelz945y09tzawew6pqs5wkkp6dppeujgxxnqltgufsmzuul6</author_url><provider_name>njump</provider_name><provider_url>https://nostr.ae</provider_url><html>📅 Original date posted:2017-03-29&#xA;📝 Original message:I believe that as we continue to add users to the system by scaling&#xA;capacity that we will see more new nodes appear, but I&#39;m at a bit of a loss&#xA;as to how to empirically prove it.&#xA;&#xA;I do see your point on increasing load on archival nodes, but the majority&#xA;of that load is going to come from new nodes coming online, they&#39;re the&#xA;only ones going after very old blocks.   I could see that as a potential&#xA;attack vector, overwhelm the archival nodes by spinning up new nodes&#xA;constantly, therefore making it difficult for a &#34;real&#34; new node to get up&#xA;to speed in a reasonable amount of time.&#xA;&#xA;Perhaps the answer there would be a way to pay an archival node a small&#xA;amount of bitcoin in order to retrieve blocks older than a certain cutoff?&#xA;Include an IP address for the node asking for the data as metadata in the&#xA;transaction...  Archival nodes could set and publish their own policy, let&#xA;the market decide what those older blocks are worth.  Would also help to&#xA;incentivize running archival node, which we do need.  Of course, this isn&#39;t&#xA;very user friendly.&#xA;&#xA;We can take this to bitcoin-discuss, if we&#39;re getting too far off topic.&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 11:25 AM David Vorick &lt;david.vorick at gmail.com&gt;&#xA;wrote:&#xA;&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; On Mar 29, 2017 12:20 PM, &#34;Andrew Johnson&#34; &lt;andrew.johnson83 at gmail.com&gt;&#xA;&gt; wrote:&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; What&#39;s stopping these users from running a pruned node?  Not every node&#xA;&gt; needs to store a complete copy of the blockchain.&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; Pruned nodes are not the default configuration, if it was the default&#xA;&gt; configuration then I think you would see far more users running a pruned&#xA;&gt; node.&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; But that would also substantially increase the burden on archive nodes.&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; Further discussion about disk space requirements should be taken to&#xA;&gt; another thread.&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; --&#xA;Andrew Johnson&#xA;-------------- next part --------------&#xA;An HTML attachment was scrubbed...&#xA;URL: &lt;http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20170329/9b48ebe3/attachment-0001.html&gt;</html></oembed>