FTFY!

While nodes don't really get a vote, they may represent one.

If I had to venture a guess, people with large amounts of bitcoin also are the type of people who will want the obvious advantages that comes from using a full node as your wallet software.

Clearly this is only speculation on my part, but I think it makes sense.

It obvious. They don't have the support of the economic majority or it would have happened ages ago.

No, not with Bitcoin.

As soon as someone makes a block larger than 1 MB they, and clients and miners that support larger blocks, will fork away from the clients and miners who do not support larger blocks, and there would be two block chains, both claiming to be Bitcoin.

It not that "I didn't like it". It's that whoever wrote it started throwing shit about two sentences in. If you can't make an argument without calling someone names, then you are just wasting my time.

Impossible to read. Too much propaganda. Thanks for nothing OP.

The market will obviously decide and if BU had the market they would have forked long ago. You don't need to ask when you have the economic majority backing you.

No.

The goal is to avoid drastic increases to the amount of information which peers are required to share between each other in order to keep the network operational along with retaining the ability to run a full node (which may be required to become a mining node (use your imagination)) on easily accessible consumer grade hardware.

I fully expect outright attacks on Bitcoin in the future. To me it seems like we've passed "peak freedom" in the civilized world, and Bitcoin is an extremely powerful tool for obtaining and maintaining individual freedom.

This is far more important to me than cheap, fast confirmations.

Besides, I have no problem with increasing transaction capacity and decreasing transaction costs through the implementations of a second layer(s) which is perfectly compatible with the above.

I'm not convinced that the people who complain about the cost of transactions (I think they are ridiculously cheap considering the utility the provide) are the type of people who care about the benefits a full node provides. The fact that comparisons are often made to centralized services (VISA, PayPal) which are nothing like Bitcoin is a prime example.

Also, I spent a lot of time and effort in the past warning about the problems that will arise due to mining pools, and did everything I could to promote p2pool, but it's pretty clear that ship has already sailed (p2pool still exists but it never got the type of support it needed to thrive). In my experience, miners hash rate providers are generally near-sighted, care little about the health of the network or the long term viability of Bitcoin, and are only there to make a quick buck in fiat profits. I'm not exactly keen on handing more control over to their bosses (actual miners, aka pool operators).

No. In case you haven't noticed, Bitcoin has been facing "imminent catastrophe" on a regular basis for years now, and it has actually "died" many times!

It will continue to face "imminent catastrophe" for decades to come, until it's no longer a disruptive technology.

What we are often seeing are games designed to separate users from their Bitcoins.

Wait... I thought you were a BU supporter? What happened?

The barrier to entry to run full node is magnitudes higher than the barrier to entry to append the block chain.

Yet, you want to reduce the barrier to append the block chain while increasing the barrier to run a full node.

I think that Bitcoin has many more years (maybe decades) where it will need to defend itself from external attacks. It's simply too disruptive. I mean you have major western governments implementing additional capital controls on a regular basis and Bitcoin is quite obviously a way to avoid those controls. I don't think they are going to simply shrug their shoulders.

This is why I think it's very important to keep the requirements to run a node, and sustain the network, as low as possible.

This is why I think scaling should be done on an additional layer than can be peeled away should the need arise.

I'm sure I someone will come along and call me paranoid for having such views. Considering current events, I don't think a little paranoia is a bad thing. I prefer to look at it as being prepared. Erring on the side of decentralization is the prudent choice in my opinion.

You probably aren't going to get an unbiased explanation. Sorry.

There is a ton of information out there, and most of it takes more than a casual grasp of Bitcoin to even begin to understand.

If you really want to learn, you are going to have to dedicate a fair amount of time reading (and sorting through the FUD from both sides for nuggets of valuable information).

I can gimp my node now if I want, that's not an issue. I gimped it for quite some time before I finally upgraded to a faster connection.

I want my node to be useful to others... that's why I upgraded my internet.

Forwarding a port has nothing to do with the node software. No, 60 connections usually. Normally a windows update or power outage will come along before it can get much higher than that.

Yes, I still have to spend money on a battery backup.

I don't know how to fix the windows update thing, but anything is better than my experiences with various flavors of Linux (sadly).

No, my node is completely average.

You are talking to someone who has been running a node on dedicated hardware 24/7 for 6 years now.

I know the costs of running a node, and those costs absolutely dwarf, like it's not even in the same fucking universe, the money I've spent on transaction fees. I won't even count the time spent maintaining the node.

I've had to upgrade to a different ISP already because my node was eating all the upload bandwidth on my home internet to the point where browsing the web was unusable. I'm talking about top tier internet from a major ISP in a densely populated location.

I've spent less than $10 on transaction fees since 2011, and I've been generous (paying more than average since I mined myself). I paid transaction fees when blocks were empty and others were paying nothing.

So sell your we-need-to-increase-capacity-now-so-transaction-are-fast-and-cheap to someone else. If you want to spit on the people who have been supporting the network for years, so be it. Oh that's right, I was told today, by a BU supporter, that 3 nodes is fine.

Satoshi gave us something really fantastic and I appreciate that more than most...

...but an appeal to authority is not an argument.

Besides, no one is perfect (otherwise mining pools wouldn't exist and solo mining would be the only option).

He also said the following.


If I have to rely on another person to provide me with the block chain data, that is clearly the need for a trusted third party.

Oh I disagree. There is going to be a looooooooooooong bear market if we have a contentious hard fork. I have a feeling there will be some long term "games" played and the winner won't be known for several years. After that, recovering trust will be another long road.

If anything, this entire debacle shows how mining pools are extremely unhealthy for the network and it's unfortunate a method to promote solo mining hasn't been invented (maybe it's impossible?).

It's easy. Humans evolve into a hive mind.

We have existing rules with a functioning network right now. Why would those of us who want to keep those rules have to go anywhere or do anything? That doesn't make any sense.