Sorry I should add this precision: Broadcasting a transaction to a node that has already received this transaction.

In other word, inefficiencies.

What exactly are you referring to as "get the same TX data 6 times"? I keep reading that, but not following.

Again, you should wait to see what will happen with the block always full

The day where starting to count is the 11 January 2016.

normally it is not allowed to answer your question but i want to help:

https://de.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3gmkak/the_blockstream_business_plan/

could be a reason.

There are some companies/persons that benefit with the no block increase. There have been rumors that blockcstream is actively pushing for a no size block increase.

Because tps limit issue of blockchain is the whole focus to push ppl over to Blockstream. Its not rumor, its a fact.

Because he is the one who brought bitcoin to life. And i really think that there would be not much resistance against what he claims to be right. He is simply so very much trusted.

Bitcoin was designed to be protected from the influence of charismatic leaders, even if their name is Gavin Andresen, Barack Obama, or Satoshi Nakamoto.  Nearly everyone has to agree on a change, and they have to do it without being forced or pressured into it.  By doing a fork in this way, these developers are violating the "original vision" they claim to honour.

I think you are right. When Satoshi would speak up then his word would be a law. No one would speak against without surviving it because bitcoiners love satoshi till death.

Though i think this is the biggest real crisis for the community and the development of bitcoin. Before crisis were only scams or drop of price. That is nothing with the technology. But now satoshi really could start to say a word in order to safe bitcoin. It's his child at the end.

I think he still takes part in the community. Maybe we wrote with him already without knowing it. I really don't think he is not here anymore.

The danger of that strategy is a sudden spike in use taking place during the earlier phases of the conservative increase (if >1 phase even exists). The sooner that some tx rate spike inducing event happens after a conservative increase, the easier it would be to exploit user frustration by construing the tx spike as being a direct consequence of making too conservative an increase (followed by another unilateral hard fork attempt...)

I'm looking at the purely political angle, and so it's easy to dismiss it as just a hypothetical, but it seems to me that ruling out this kind of oppotunity somehow needs to be either addressed in it's own right or made redundant by whatever the preferred solution to scaling is.

"Greatest common denominator" agreement did not seem to be agreeing to an increase which continues over time, but which instead limits itself to a set, smooth increase for X time and then requires a second hardfork if there is agreement on a need for more blocksize at that point."

Haha!

Nothing in the Universe is static. Bitcoin has never been effectively capped either.
Keep it at 1MB forever and it will wither and die or mutate into sidechains that would then tear it apart anyway.

Remember, the true path of Bitcoin isn't ambiguous.
Sometimes things need to change in order to stay the same.

I will say it again, that Bitcoin is the only network of its kind that has saturated the level of home-based internet infrastructure to the point that it can now move onto the next stage of its evolution (8MB), while the niche it used to cover can be served by its closest PoW competitor, which has exact same properties except for smaller market cap, while being at the time more convenient to operate at home.

Satoshi has always intended to increase the limit and even provided a small code-snippet demonstrating how to do it.

Its whether or not the next person wants to buy your coin, and for how much, is what gives them value. Not the holder.
If there is no utility, no infrastructure and no potential then there is no market.

Compared to existing financial IT, Satoshi made radical trade-offs in favor of security and against performance. The seemingly wasteful process of mining is the most obvious of these trade-offs, but it also makes others. Among them is that it requires high redundancy in its messaging. Mathematically provable integrity would require full broadcast between all nodes. Bitcoin can’t achieve that, but to even get anywhere close to a good approximation of it requires a very high level of redundancy. So a 1MB block takes vastly more resources than a 1MB web page, for example, because it has to be transmitted, processed and stored with such high redundancy for Bitcoin to achieve its automated integrity.”

we should make a new thread about this network topology stuff, and have hours of fun arguing about the most optimal design, while ignoring brg444's trollery that we are wasting our time.  

actually i am, we all are.

which is why bitcoin will improve or die.

because i WILL move on to somthing I JUDGE better, if bitcoin can't deliver.

jesus christ is it so hard to believe bitcoin version 1 wasn't the most optimal piece of software in the world?

there actually broadcasted many times as they hop from one node to the other

do you even know how bitcoin works?    

Then go on and explain how broadcasting the same transaction twice increase resilience instead of making pointless post. 

The only thing that needs redundancy is the blockchain. Broadcasting the same transaction twice is called inefficiencies.

Buying a bitcoin and doing absolutely nothing with it for 10 years is about as useless to the bitcoin ecosystem as completely ignoring it.

You dont support bitcoin by wanting a "monetary system that isn't based on debt, and isn't confined by borders" .. thats called dreaming. You can support bitcoin by actively seeking out ways that you can integrate bitcoin in your daily life, and maybe provide services to others using bitcoin.

Money is just as useful when lying “idle” in somebody’s cash balance, even in a miser’s “hoard.” (At what point does a man’s cash balance become a faintly disreputable “hoard,” or the prudent man a miser? It is impossible to fix any definite criterion: generally, the charge of “hoarding” means that A is keeping more cash than B thinks is appropriate for A.) For that money is being held now in wait for possible future exchange—it supplies to its owner, right now, the usefulness of permitting exchanges at any time—present or future—the owner might desire.