On Friday, 27 March 2015, at 4:57 pm, Wladimir J. van der Laan wrote: > On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 11:16:43AM -0400, Matt Whitlock wrote: > > I agree that someone could do this, but why is that a problem? Isn't the > > goal of this exercise to ensure more full nodes on the network? In order to > > be able to answer the challenges, an entity would need to be running a full > > node somewhere. Thus, they have contributed at least one additional full > > node to the network. I could certainly see a case for a company to host > > hundreds of lightweight (e.g., EC2) servers all backed by a single copy of > > the block chain. Why force every single machine to have its own copy? All > > you really need to require is that each agency/participant have its own > > copy. > > They would not even have to run one. It could just pass the query to a random > other node, and forward its result :)
D'oh. Of course. Thanks. :/ The suggestion about encrypting blocks with a key tied to IP address seems like a bad idea, though. Lots of nodes are on dynamic IP addresses. It wouldn't really be practical to re-encrypt the entire block chain every time a node's IP address changes. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Dive into the World of Parallel Programming The Go Parallel Website, sponsored by Intel and developed in partnership with Slashdot Media, is your hub for all things parallel software development, from weekly thought leadership blogs to news, videos, case studies, tutorials and more. Take a look and join the conversation now. http://goparallel.sourceforge.net/ _______________________________________________ Bitcoin-development mailing list Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
