Author: Mike Hearn 2012-12-04 20:58:54
Published on: 2012-12-04T20:58:54+00:00
The writer argues that there is a certain time window for new ideas to take off and become credible. If they fail to overcome their problems in that time frame, people eventually move on. As an example, the author cites desktop Linux, which has made steady improvements over the last 10 years but has failed to generate excitement or attention. The author suggests that Bitcoin should not go the same way and that it is important to send a clear message to users that supporting the network is important.The author also questions whether every user needs to run a full node, citing the example of the Tor network, where the number of users vastly outstrips the number of nodes, particularly exit nodes, which are a scarce resource run by people who commit to it. While some may argue that every node should be an exit if possible, the Tor team opted for long-term stability over short-term optimization and was able to obtain the resources they need without incentives. Hence, the author questions why Bitcoin should be different and suggests that having a million users supported by 50,000 full nodes would not sound unhealthy. In conclusion, the author does not have any particular timeline in mind but disagrees that Bitcoin has forever to overcome its problems. Rather, the author suggests that a clear and consistent message should be sent to users to support the network. The author also questions whether every user needs to run a full node and suggests that the Tor network's success demonstrates that having a vast number of users supported by a smaller number of committed nodes is possible.
Updated on: 2023-06-06T09:29:27.719070+00:00