AntPool, BTCChina Pool, 21 Inc., BW Pool and KNCMiner support 8MB

[entertainment]

10 years ago, the average hdd was 1GB of capacity, today is close to 1TB! How can he proposes a 4MB limit in 10 years? Where is the logic for that?

The concerns of most devs has nothing to do with hard drive space but propagation time, bandwidth limits(especially upload) and mempool problems created by larger blocks.

I have today 200mpbs upload speed. 10 years ago I had 56kbps.

[entertainment]

Wrong. It is more about the network bandwidth than about storage (even though we are reaching the maximum with the current technology). The increase has started to slow down over the last few years. The problem is persistent in developing countries.

Mmmm.... NO. That's the problem, they see an scarce future, and I'm not agree at all with that predictions.

http://www.v3.co.uk/v3-uk/news/2396249/exclusive-university-of-surrey-achieves-5g-speeds-of-1tbps

[BitUsher]

I have today 200mpbs upload speed. 10 years ago I had 56kbps.

First of all, it isn't just about you but about the rest of the world as well and the diversity of node count.

Secondly, I seriously doubt you have 200 Mbps persistent upload speed. The US typically averages about ~8Mbps upload and many parts of the world people are limited to 0.5 to 1 Mbps upload. A couple of the devs would have to drop their nodes as an example with Gavin's proposal.

Advertised peak upload speed does not equal reality.

[entertainment]

I have today 200mpbs upload speed. 10 years ago I had 56kbps.

First of all, it isn't just about you but about the rest of the world as well and the diversity of node count.

Secondly, I seriously doubt you have 200 Mbps persistent upload speed. The US typically averages about ~8Mbps upload and many parts of the world people are limited to 0.5 to 1 Mbps upload. A couple of the devs would have to drop their nodes as an example with Gavin's proposal.

Advertised peak upload speed does not equal reality.

I really have 200mbps upload speed. And it's just a commercial ISP with a cheap and flat price, and I'm not from USA. And I have not doubt we are going to see soon much faster speeds with the new technologies: http://www.androidauthority.com/5g-network-speed-20-gbps-618192/

5G will be defined as a network “capable of transmitting data at up to 20 gigabits-per-second”

[BitUsher]

I really have 200mbps upload speed. And it's just a commercial ISP with a cheap and flat price, and I'm not from USA. And I have not doubt we are going to see soon much faster speeds with the new technologies: http://www.androidauthority.com/5g-network-speed-20-gbps-618192/

5G will be defined as a network “capable of transmitting data at up to 20 gigabits-per-second”

The exception that breaks the rule being applied to an international decentralized currency , huh?

When and if that reality happens we can revisit its implications on bitcoin. Until than it doesn't follow past historical trends as outlined by BiP 103 and thus we should be skeptical about the advertised possibilities that the future entails. That is what is sensible and rational. I have no doubt there will be certain unique cities that have high speed fiber optic connections and 5G but the concern is node count decreasing to these certain locations only instead of increasing everywhere. This infrastructure may roll out with the next 4-6 years in large metropolitan cities but will take much longer elsewhere.

[entertainment]

I really have 200mbps upload speed. And it's just a commercial ISP with a cheap and flat price, and I'm not from USA. And I have not doubt we are going to see soon much faster speeds with the new technologies: http://www.androidauthority.com/5g-network-speed-20-gbps-618192/

5G will be defined as a network “capable of transmitting data at up to 20 gigabits-per-second”

The exception that breaks the rule being applied to an international decentralized currency , huh?

When and if that reality happens we can revisit its implications on bitcoin. Until than it doesn't follow past historical trends as outlined by BiP 103 and thus we should be skeptical about the advertised possibilities that the future entails. That is what is sensible and rational. I have no doubt there will be certain unique cities that have high speed fiber optic connections and 5G but the concern is node count decreasing to these certain locations only instead of increasing everywhere. This infrastructure may roll out with the next 4-6 years in large metropolitan cities but will take much longer elsewhere.

And what about the race for hight-speed Internet Satellite? SpaceX, Airbus...

I'm sure they could help the other part of the world.

[BitUsher]

And what about the race for hight-speed Internet Satellite? SpaceX, Airbus...

I'm sure they could help the other part of the world.

Satellite internet has horrible latency. There is a huge discrepancy between real life numbers and proposed projections and peak numbers or hypothetical rates. Even your 200 Mbps is likely burst speed and not continuous , with possible secret soft caps. As a child I used to read books like popular science and popular mechanics but as I matured I realized that many "tech" journalists know little about the technology they write about and many of their expectations were exaggerated for journalistic effect as well.

I could understand if your case was presented in such a way that took into account past historical trends.
Why isn't it sensible to use past trends as a conservative projection and than we can make adjustments if these technologies actually become commonplace?

[Lauda]

Please stop spreading misinformation. Today I have 2Mbps upload, and 10 years ago I had 1Mbps. What is your point? As I have stated, the problem is severe in developing lands (if you factor in the firewall in China, it gets worse).

I have today 200mpbs upload speed. 10 years ago I had 56kbps.

That's interesting, dial up internet in 2005. Where do you live if I may ask? Anyhow, mentioning 5G is pointless. Where I currently reside (information not available to public) I barely ever experience a 3G connection (rarely, usually in the center of a city).


Even though it is a bit outdated, it shows that the developing lands are far behind and will continue to to be so.
I didn't have time to preform a more extensive search.

[Mikestang]

Satoshi never intended to a limit to exist, so what was his solution?

His solution was the 1MB blocks that we have today.  He didn't have an ultimate solution, else this discussion wouldn't be happening.

I support larger blocks, but I do not support XT.  I see it as an attempt at a hostile take over of the blockchain.  If XT "wins", then the firm of Hearn and Andresen basically takes ownership of the entire blockchain, as they retain the sole power to say what's in and what's out of XT.  That doesn't sit well with me at all.

[adamstgBit]

Satoshi never intended to a limit to exist, so what was his solution?

His solution was the 1MB blocks that we have today.  He didn't have an ultimate solution, else this discussion wouldn't be happening.

I support larger blocks, but I do not support XT.  I see it as an attempt at a hostile take over of the blockchain.  If XT "wins", then the firm of Hearn and Andresen basically takes ownership of the entire blockchain, as they retain the sole power to say what's in and what's out of XT.  That doesn't sit well with me at all.

they will suddenly have to power to make miners run Whatever they want them too as soon as TX is implement? really?? come on....

I support larger blocks , and i'd definitely buy some hashing power mining big blocks if that option was available.

[pedrog]

Satoshi never intended to a limit to exist, so what was his solution?

His solution was the 1MB blocks that we have today.  He didn't have an ultimate solution, else this discussion wouldn't be happening.

I support larger blocks, but I do not support XT.  I see it as an attempt at a hostile take over of the blockchain.  If XT "wins", then the firm of Hearn and Andresen basically takes ownership of the entire blockchain, as they retain the sole power to say what's in and what's out of XT.  That doesn't sit well with me at all.

It's that or Blockstream Core, and those guys have their own network to sell to the entire community...

[Mikestang]

I support larger blocks, but I do not support XT.  I see it as an attempt at a hostile take over of the blockchain.  If XT "wins", then the firm of Hearn and Andresen basically takes ownership of the entire blockchain, as they retain the sole power to say what's in and what's out of XT.  That doesn't sit well with me at all.

they will suddenly have to power to make miners run Whatever they want them too as soon as TX is implement? really?? come on....

Yes, really.  If XT were to win out those two would have ultimate say in every single aspect of bitcoin, with one of them being able to override the other.

Decisions are made through agreement between Mike and Gavin, with Mike making the final call if a serious dispute were to arise.

source: https://bitcoinxt.software/faq.html

I do not see how giving 1 or 2 people ultimate control of the network decentralizes anything.