I don't say end-users need to run full nodes but I have said that some might do so if that matters to them (in particular they might do that if they have a lot of BTC).

And you think that they are running home-grade internet connections (and are not running full nodes)?

While it is streaming two HD movies at the same time?

You seem to think that people are going to donate all of their bandwidth (for no return) just to run Bitcoin. Why on earth would they do that?

There is *no reward* for running a Bitcoin node if you are not mining so I am pretty sure you are going to find no-one to run these 10K nodes you want.

And again I'll say (as none of you guys want to answer it) why hasn't Bitcoin already taken on the likes of Western Union and won?

I guess that depends upon how you think decentralisation should be handled.

What I find most frustrating is that everyone keeps ignoring the fact that Bitcoin has made no inroads into the remittance market and instead keeps on arguing about coffees (or whatever small txs).

Why don't you guys care about the fact that it has failed to defeat Western Union when that company is gouging people for fees in excess of 10%?

Seriously if it can't beat WU then it will never beat VISA.

For a lot of people that would be 1/4 of their entire bandwidth.

So you think they should stop watching movies and do other things apart from let others buy coffees?

And 4K TPS is not even close to what VISA does currently (and as you want it to replace everything then you need to multiply that by everything else that is being used).

That actually depends upon your bandwidth (a point I was trying to make before about China which seemingly you missed).

Again even Satoshi did not think that home nodes would be needed so I don't know why you think they are (provided we have enough miners we should have enough decentralisation).

If you really want a network of just CPUs from home computers or the like then you don't want to use PoW (maybe you should look into PoS or PoC or the like).

Also please make sure you have read this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CAP_theorem to understand why Bitcoin can never be as efficient as a centralised service.

Please think about the fact that Bitcoin has *failed* to gain any significant hold in the remittance market - as all logic and economics says it should have (and I do know major players in this area). If it can't succeed in that then I think hoping that it has any chance against the major payment systems is actually just fantasy.

Why on earth would they?

Everyone on earth should be able to handle the same txs as VISA just so you can buy your coffee?

I think you forgot to ask everyone on earth if they want to (and most smartphones which are going to be the majority of computer users are going to literally start burning a hole in your pocket doing that).

You haven't - as they are talking about nodes that already received the txs (it is only about reducing the information needed to talk about what is in a block assuming a node already has seen the txs).

I am also of the opinion that you are just starting to waste people's time with stupid stuff (so if you won't listen to the other poster then perhaps you'll listen to me).

All the core devs agree that you can't do decentralised txs as quickly and that is due to some very fundamental reasons. So this is not going to get "fixed up" by some magic piece of code in the same way you can't just get rid of gravity.

There is a reason - it is the cost for processing txs.

It is simply cheaper to process txs in a centralised manner (always has been and always will be).

So unless you have worked out how to change the laws of physics I'm afraid your idea is just plain wrong.

Again - why does no-one seem to care that Bitcoin has failed to do anything in the remittance market (low hanging fruit) yet argue so much about stupid small txs?

If it can't replace SWIFT and WU then really it will never replace VISA (yet you only seem to care about competing with VISA and not care about the "big picture").

So - you expect to be able to use Bitcoin to pay for your coffee but no-one is actually even paying you in Bitcoin (or wait for it...).

How do you get your BTC for your coffees then (apart from having your rather obvious ad-sig)?

I get it now - the people who want to make such small payments are all ad-siggers (it figures).

I'd rather that the Bitcoin network wasn't tailored for people spending most of their time making pointless posts in order to earn coffees (but maybe others think that is how the world should work).

Seriously IMO the one mistake that Satoshi made was to compare Bitcoin to other centralised payment systems.

The biggest area that Bitcoin should have already made an impact in is remittance yet what impact has it made in that area so far (hint - virtually none)?

So instead of focusing on the low hanging fruit of remittance (an industry worth billions in profits every year) we are now relentlessly arguing about people buying their coffees with Bitcoin (which pretty much no-one is going to do anyway as hardly anyone even has enough BTC to buy a coffee).

Well actually it would be much simpler if you had an app that let you spend your Starbucks credits when you go to that store (with no need for a Bitcoin address to do so). As a payment system Bitcoin *sucks* as it is much easier to use virtually any other existing payment system (why people have got so enthused about Bitcoin as a payment system is actually beyond me).

If you find Bitcoin too hard to use then you use a fiat exchange to get your credits - so those that don't want to see a Bitcoin address don't need to and actually most likely don't want to use Bitcoin at all (all they want is a coffee).

Also trying to shove every single tx in the world into the blockchain is just plain stupid (and doesn't actually make things easier as it will just overload the network to the point you'd be waiting until your coffee got cold before the payment was accepted).

You as a vendor would have had to already agree to use a sidechain - you aren't "forced into it" by the buyer.

The sidechain is free to have a completely different approach (even a centralised one I would guess).

So in fact for Starbucks a suitable sidechain that is actually a centralised one (run by them) might actually make the most sense (least cost and least chance of fraud without impacting upon the main blockchain).

To some extent I think it can work much like a voucher or points system does (so you purchase Starbucks credits via Bitcoin that are spent using their sidechain).

Too quick to reply - again so what?

Same problem with cash or credit cards.

If every Starbucks franchisee wants to run a full node then they can but of course that wouldn't make any financial sense would it?

If you're buying a cup of coffee - who cares?

Seriously are you saying this is a problem for the spender or the vendor?

(hint - vendors already have to take into account credit card fraud and fake bank bills)

Hmm... well maybe you wouldn't run 24x7 but if you had a lot of BTC and did just the occasional tx you might still want to run a full node to help secure the network that is being used to hold your funds (and be more sure of your txs).

For sure if we are going to have enormous blocks to allow for everyone to buy a coffee using the blockchain directly then virtually no-one is going to run a full node (as you can't even run a full node on a smartphone which is what those buying coffees will be using - I don't see people bringing their laptop up to the counter to pay for their coffee).

So I think your logic is perhaps not so irrefutable.

Well Satoshi himself had stated that the vast majority of people would only run SPV nodes anyway so I'm not quite sure what point you are really making (am guessing it is a sarcastic point as your logic is apparently irrefutable).

Obviously the bigger the block size limit the less likely that any home nodes will be full ones but even with the current limit there are fewer and fewer people actually running full nodes so do you think if the block size limit were to be further reduced then that would change?

Or are you just saying that Bitcoin is becoming centralised?

There are goto's in Bitcoin's code written by some Americans - so go figure - people all around the world can write spaghetti and use goto statements.

Also reverse engineering C or C++ won't produce anything readable at all (as it is compiled).

Slowed down rather than filtered at the lower levels (so even if you get past the firewall you are back in the 1990s).


Within China itself the speed is very fast (as I mentioned my wife and I can both watch a different HD movie at the same time with no problem here).

Okay - thanks for the info - so SPV mining is not the same as the Relay Network?

So do we know exactly what software was being run by the pools that caused the fork?