1) thats not going to be a problem,
storage
we already know 4tb hard drives are available, they are not specialist equipment only available to the elite. they are consumer level availability so no concern. knowing average consumers upgrade their computer every 4 years means that 4tb can handle ~18mb blocks. so knowing this next year we are only gonna get 2-4mb blocks and then waste another year or 3 debating what to do after 2-4mb.. we wont reach 18mb blocks thus 4tb hard drives are more then what is needed. and in 4 years bigger hard drives will be available.
eg 20 years ago 4gb hard drives were the max consumer level, now its 4tb. in 20 years it will be alot more. so no worries
bandwidth
telecommunications companies have a 5 year plan/roadmap. cellular companies have 5G as their plan and landline have fibre as their plan. the maths also shows they both will outpace what we will need for bitcoin. afterall playing an online game while live streaming it and teamspeaking to team mates is the norm and requires more bandwidth than bitcoin. yet we dont see twitch, activision, crying and refusing to run services. they are happily running for millions of people. yet funnily core are refusing and using fake stats to hold off.. remember their 2mb is bad.. but now suddenly 4mb is good. even the pools are telling core to shut up an stop using the 'chinese firewall' as an excuse, because the firewall is not a probem.

2) fully syncing
that can be solved easily. torrents, pre-setup hard drives(you copy the blockdata from old hard drive to new hard drive then only sync the last few days you wasted setting up new pc)

3) supporting the network
as for limiting an average person??
not a problem either.
what pee's the average person off is not the download time because thats a background thing. what pee's them off is how core is not fully functional until its fully synced. by this i mean it doesnt display live balance and doesnt like to make transactions while not synced.
thus people blame the sync time, rather then blame how core set up the GUI interface to function only after syncing
 this can be solved by core requesting data about the users imported keys first and then allow the user to actually make transactions, and then grab the historic data after. thus users are not waiting for it to sync first. EG run in lite mode until synced. rather than waiting to sync to then get users to choose full or lite mode. its easy to program and not a bitcoin issue but rather a core decision they can make to enhance their GUI (user interface) side of core.

4) the incentive exists.
its called securing your own funds by not relying on third party services. there does not need to be a financial payment incentive. also having 2 million full nodes running actually counteracts the equilibrium of security by requiring more connections which requires more hops/delays in getting to everyone in a reasonable time. so 10k nodes is safer and healthier than 2 million. as long as those 10k are not sybil nodes (fake/running from a clustered single location(amazon aws))

you do know segwits "solution" is just a empty gesture, a one time poke.
all it will result in is 7tx/s realistically if 100% of people used segwit.

basically making 2009's best possibility into a more of an expectability. but even that is not a guarantee..
yea core will try to oversell their own best possibility, and expectability for segwit, but i hope people dont treat it as gospel
only expect about 4500tx if 100% of people use it. which is the same numbers being throwing around in 2009-2010

its just a one time gesture, that has taken over a year just to even have the code. yet will take a while to even have the chance to even be utilised.

imagine it this way.
imagine in 2010 the buffer limit was 0.2mb and data bloat was 0.19mb.. where a year was wasted before some consensus roadmap came to fruition. then a year to release the code, then months/year to activate it. bringing the actual utility upto 2013. where the gesture only allowed a one time bump to upto 0.4mb IF 100% of people used that code.
history can see that 0.4mb would not have been enough for 2013 even if 100% used the 'solution'

knowing that when it actually becomes possible to use, we as a community would already be begging for more again. because the delays have surpassed the utility.

we can already see that core are preparing the next debate that we again should not PROPERLY scale onchain via independent consensus of dynamic blocks because core want to spoonfeed and control the code and decisions. they are only caring about pushing people over to altcoins(sidechains) and commercial services (LN hubs).

they want to delay real growth to self forfil a prophecy they have. if they delay growth. they can then give an empty gesture to then have the community still begging. which they then reply that growth shouldnt happen because their empty gesture didnt shut people up.

i can see they will pile on the fake exponential growth charts of suggesting the community will be begging to double blocksizes every 2 months because their empty gesture only silenced the community for a couple months, thus falsely determining that growth should not occur, because they will produce wacky, outlandish numbers of exponential growth of bloat, based on their a situation they cause themselves

i can see they will pile on the fake narrative of how their corporate/bank side chains are the solution, and we should not consider changing main net because the demand for change cant happen in their spoonfeeding 2 year timescales they set themselves. because they deem the communities couple month silence vs 2 years spoonfeeding wont fit and thus unable to feed the community what they wont. so best to not bother

whats more important is making bitcoin usable to buy things like bread, baked beans, toilet roll and rent.
then you wont care about fiat because your using bitcoin

if all you care about is a fiat price then you might aswell just go play with fiat and make a fiat wage

might be worth you checking how he wants to scale it. but not doing so by talking to core enthusiasts but instead doing some independant research, you will see that data bloat is of no concern to miners. and also nodes dont have an issue.

even core have said 4mb data bloat is acceptable.

all core want is to give an empty gesture to the community to bait them and switch users into using commercial services with added costs/penalties.
do try to do some independent research and realise it is core that want dominant control and for anything not core to f**k off.. not the other way round.

if i remember rightly,

the initial "random" generator was flawed and in later years we moved bitcoin to a better mechanism with more entropy. i certainly remember their being flaws in the java and other versions

secondly you dont need to try every second from 2009-2010. you just have to pick a 10 minute interval before a block was solved to aim for a particular key.

because knowing how the earlier versions were made. it generated a keypair right at the point it created the coinbase tx to add to a block to be solved. so grabbing a certain range of timestamps should be easier.
after all its not like he made thousands of keys on january 9th. the keys were generated at the same time as forming a block. which would be after the previous block but before the next block(your target) was solved.

for instance
block two has the timestamp of
2009-01-09 02:55:44
and block one has timestamp of
2009-01-09 02:54:25

so if you want to try to get block 2's coinbase privkey. you only need to search between 02:54:25 - 02:55:44

you could refine the search by taking the possibility that the timestamp of when the coinbase was created was within seconds of the creation of the keypair used to create it.

but with all that said. good luck trying. and i hope your great great grandkids have fun trying all the possibilities when you pass your project down your lineage

seems all you care about is the bitcoin price. AKA FIAT

those that care about the bitcoin price are those that only care about running back to fiat.
it makes me laugh when those that only care about fiat price try to pretend that fiat is bad, yet in the back of your mind you are looking forward to returning back to fiat.

i did find one of your quotes and thoughts of the quote funny


firstly. miners dont care about the blocksize. ASICS do NOT have a hard drive. all they do is receive a hash, add a nonce and rehash it... that is it. no hard drive, no worry of bloat, no worry of propagation times. just hash a hashed line of data. thats it.
its hash speed that impacts miners costs.. not data bloat. the more speed they have to compete against the more speed they need.
blockdata doesnt even come into the cost/speed.

as for suggesting bitcoin should not be used for commerce and just hoarded. then bitcoin loses one of its main utility.
imagine it this way. imagine their was an airbourne chemical that rendered gold useless for circuits/jewellery. and then people said, dont worry just hoard it, dont worry about how useless it has become, just hoard it.
the reality is that people will see it pointless to hoard something useless. they would move onto something else that has utility, and thus real demand.

wake up and smell the coffee.. killing off bitcoins utility as a currency and wanting to just hoard it for fiat purposes later on makes people think all you care about is fiat

segwit is not offering much more then we are already getting
their estimates are ONLY if 100% of users use segwit tx's

all this doomsday crap like 2mb is bad.. then suddenly core say 4mb is acceptable, yet still keeping legacy tx's at 1mb... is just bait and switch crap to delay real scaling to sell people on the idea that bitcoin onchain and LN will cost people alot to use.

rather than actually scale bitcoin they are trying to push people down a small thin straw and syphon people away from the permissionless onchain mechanism we know and love.

my issue is that if everyone runs only bitcoin core, (no code diversity) and all run it from amazonaws, (no location diversity) where all nodes are pruned and unable to allow new nodes to sync.

bitcoin become limited to being just a relay network that begins to crumble when new nodes cant join because existing nodes dont allow full syncing or have inbound connections closed.

i see no point in people paying $20 a month to some data centre when out of 7billion people.. or even just 2 million that are using/have bitcoin. can easily run a full node from home.

yea theres a few hundred or a couple thousand that say they cant. but that doesnt stop the majority that can. its like saying lets not let activision or blizzard release any new online games because some people cant play the game

if core want to be the centre/core of bitcoin then they should concentrate on being a full node and stop all the wishy washy pruned/litenode stuff.. leave that for electrum/multibit to play with.
pretending that not upgrading, or running pruned mode, or not having inbound connections is 'fine' is putting people into a false sense of security and wasting their time.

people who want to be full nodes need to know the darn assed truth about what's involved.
teaching people that anything below say 18-74 connections means that some nodes wont be getting the block data in the next hop, so that the recipient from you might be having to pass it around because you have not passed it around as much yourself.
yes its minimal disruption.
but a healthy network is about being a strong network where its all uptodate and verified efficiently. and should one supernode go offline there are enough other supernodes to cover everyone getting the data efficiently.

i understand core want to dominate and be the centre so that users can just be crappy litenode relayers.. but thats stupidly centralizing the network where litenodes do not have independent network involvement but are just a shadow/false pretence illusions of decentralisation.

i dont see any reason to incentivise nodes if the only reason people want to run a node is for a pay day
i dont see any reason to incentivise nodes if people dont understand what a FULL node intels
i dont see any reason to incentivise nodes if core devs want to be the gate keeper main supernode and then have weak shadow nodes pretending to be full nodes even though they have not upgraded or have upgraded but then decided to turn off certain settings because they feel someone else can do the work for them

here we go with the fake doomsday crap yet again

a consensus fork only occurs when there is sufficient approval to move forward with new rules.
worse case is without majority approval we will see orphans. and a bit of drama as the orphan game plays out.

stop comparing bitcoin to ethereum.
ethereum done an intentional split by actually IGNORING consensus and ignoring opposing nodes.

wake up to reality and do some research a consensus upgrade wont cause 2 chains to co-exist.

no one is proposing a controversial split or a intentional split. however its the core devs that refuse to release code to allow consensus to grow and core devs telling non core devs to f**k off.

stop trying to scare people thinking/making people think consensual forks are dangerous, as all it is doing is making you sound desparate to hold back real bitcoin growth

making bitcoin do scrypt in the hopes of averting asic farms is futile.

it would take just a few months to make one and we would be in the position we are now in, in 6 months
the reason no one is bothering with scrypt asics is not technical. its economics.

litecoin doesnt have the same utility as bitcoin. no one cares about it much. so no on cares to make a scrypt asic.
the price of litecoin is crap, being able to spend litecoin is crap. so no on is bothered.

but if bitcoin went over to scrypt. people would be bothered and see the benefit of doing it. so it would happen quickly

but anyone who wants no central bank/middleman/intermediary.
if i see you later praising LN as the only solution to bitcoin. you have already failed in wanting an open system.

oh and dont give real bitcoin supporters the dooms day of data centres and data bloat.

7 years of data fits on a fingernail not a datacentre



lets cencentrate on growing bitcoin and expanding it while remaining permissionless.
lets not feed into the banker paid drivel that bitcoin can only head in one direction.

going with just segwit.

if 100% of peoples TX's were made using segwit. tx fee's of 20cents each ($500 @~2500tx) would go from ~$500 to ~$300
but
thats assuming 100% of tx are segwit.

then depending on how much pools open up their preferential settings within the new buffers. means more tx, which means more then ~$300 to offset the discount, you would see ~4500tx instead of ~2500

but thats assuming pools open up the preferential setting to fully use up the new allowances

ill try to explain

---

some think that all transaction data will be hit by a 4x discount. when in actual fact its just the signatures receiving the discount
some think that more space = less demand/less average fee, again wrong. pools wont jump straight to the max allowed buffer.

they would test the waters by opening their own safe preference allowance within the new buffer rules.
EG when the rule was 1mb for years, pools selected lower preference level over time to acclimatize themselves.
even in version 0.13.x of core there is a preference defaulting still at 0.7mb even though pools now raise it to 0.99x mb.
with segwit or even dynamic blocks. pools will try lets say 1.001mb weight first to test the water and then grow when they see the orphan risk is not causing issues.. they wont jump straight to max buffer rule on day one.

as for how much bonus(combined tx fee) will be, lets say 0.5btc combined was the old expectation / 20cents per tx old expectation.
you wont see a drop purely based on less demand. because pools wont open up the buffer fully.
so the 20cent per tx will still be expectant for legacy tx's, but if using segwit. only part of a tx gets a discount. which works out at a end result of paying 12.5cents total/tx instead of 20cents, which by allowing more transactions through over time offsets that discount abit, because the combined total will grow.

so because pools wont be jumping to max buffer instantly and users wont be jumping to 100% segwit usage instantly. dont expect much to change.

we are still going to see the fee war rising the price faster than the speed of users swapping over to segwit and pools to expanding their preferencial buffer.

bitcoin is NOT a commodity..

commodity is a raw material used to create other products.
EG
wheat->bread
gold->jewellery/circuits
oil -> car fuel plastic

bitcoin belongs in the currency grouping and then within that, the asset market.

definitely not the commodities market.

its like some people cant even pass high school economics these days to know the basics

the article seems to be wrote by someone that has no market knowledge.
first talking about commodities.. then jumping into bitcoin.. then into the corporate share market..

serious failings for the article writer.
oh and twitter is not a commodity either..

i pick 1 and 2.. because number 3 is not a problem..

i laugh when people say the blocksize is massive..

um hello. 7 years of borderless payments of millions of people is the size of.....dramatic pause....... a fingernail


as for saying high fee's protect against spam.. well define spam. because it seems many think that developing countries hourly wage is spam. even a weeks wage should be deemed spam
also CODE can avert real spam. such as not allowing someone to resend funds the same day/ within x blocks. or limiting sig-ops of transactions. and many other CODE techniques..

using economics fails because if it requires X just to get through the relay network everyone is gonna pay X. thus thats already pushing the fee upward. then the 'average estimate' mechanism, again everyone pay that so again pushes the price up without even considering spam.
and then lastly "average estimates" are not instantly reactive to low demand times and thus keep the price up even when there isnt demand

economic 'pricing' is not the solution to spam. its a barrier of entry/utility

put it this way
if they have to ask a street busker who has to play a bamboo flute to get enough pocket change to feed himself. he doesnt really know himself how it works, otherwise he would be rich. as for the story of the doorman saying the tenant helped thieves carry his possessions to the thieves car.. im more inclined to say the door man drugged the tenant and called his mates round to raid the apartment while the tenant was passed out. telling a little fib the next day to counteract his own involvement.

it doesnt make you lucid/articulate and able to function normally minus freewill, it is a roofie/super drunk drug. it makes you passive and not fight back. like being stoned and just wanting to chillout/relax/sleep. not become a robotic mind controlled zombie.

the reason its used is that unlike a roofie that requires you to get acquainted enough with a person to hand them a drink, you can blow it in their face just passing by, and within a minute they are drowzy and drunk

even when drunk via alcohol. i could easily say "hey mate we got a taxi home but the driver needs to be paid. whats your debit card number." allowing the drunk person to, while inebriated type in their number. because even when drunk that seems rational/normal thing if you see yourself in a taxi.. ofcourse the person sitting with you sees what buttons you press to later take your card once the taxi has drove off

this doesnt mean loss of free-will while remaining coherently/lucidly. its just being so drunk your easily sold on something that sounds rational.
however if i said to a drunk person you need to empty your bank account or carry your tv down the stairs to my car. thats a different story, most drunks would laugh and say "f-u i just wanna sleep" and then leave the thief to carry it themselves.

as for telling your password to a crypto wallet.. if the password is short enough for an inebriated drunk to spell it out.. then the entropy is not that huge anyway.

---

but this is why i still think wallets need to lock privkeys to something tamper proof and use public keys and signatures as the only publicly transmitted info.

EG BitID as the 2FA for services where the service shows a unique message and you reply with signature of that message that can be verified to a public key registered to you.

retailers see your public key and give your hardware wallet all the unspents of it. and your hardware wallet signs a tx, to only send the signed tx back to the retailer. thus the hardware wallet doesnt need an internet connection or desktop client with addons to act as a middleman

doesnt quite work like that but im guessing you have been watching a tv show that mentions it, possibly about conmen, gypsies and psychics

GS stopped paying membership to R3 because R3 gave their blockchain code('corda') to hyperledger. thus now making R3 just a useless middleman group
all them banks are now deciding to drop the R3 and pay in direct to hyperledger. because R3 has served its purpose
http://www.coindesk.com/r3cev-positions-next-phase-distributed-ledger-development/
http://www.pcworld.com/article/3134014/bankers-plan-to-give-corda-blockchain-code-to-hyperledger-project.html
https://www.finextra.com/blogposting/13074/blockchain-and-hyperledger-project-beyond-the-hype
http://www.newsbtc.com/2016/10/22/r3-corda-hyperledger-open-source/

same goes for devs like blockstream and bloq and hearn.. they all want to be directly involved with hyperledger. not paying some middleman that takes a cut.

this does not mean banks have dropped out of blockchain creation it means they have upped their game and got more directly involved and collaborating directly.

at the moment jgarzic / andresen / hearn / maxwell were in talks with price waterhouse cooper. but i feel thats just some middleman that blockstream used to hide true involvement. and will soon just go direct to being tethered to hyperledger.

no point in them hiding it, so they might aswell call out what their real plans/desires are. as its become too obvious and transparent now

biased poll biased results

you might aswell make a poll that only includes gold and silver
and then ask a question what is the best investment ever. to later come to a biased conclusion that the population doesnt see bitcoin as a good investment.

all because you dont include the options.
typical core/blockstream tactic. dont give an option and then pretend because no one is using it that its not needed/wanted

altcoins are like penny stocks. so knowing a penny is 100th of a whole amount. best to stick with 1% altcoin holding.

yea play with altcoins daytrader style, to increase bitcoin.. but when it comes to hoarding. only hold 1% altcoin

may i ask why you are running 2 nodes. are they on 2 PC's in two locations.. or one of them on a datacentre one on pc.. or both data centre