This seems like an untenable position, I suppose if you had a 56k dial up connection then the whole Bitcoin network would need to downscale so that you can run a full node?
We already destroyed the chances of most possible domestic grade connections to run their own nodes (3G/4G mobile, dial-up, HAM radio, most Sat, etc).
This is true, that most domestic grade connections globally today can not run full nodes, however in the developed world most people can still run full nodes. Of course when you refer to most connections in the world you are talking about the developing world which predominantly do use mobile 3G/4G connections, however smart phones can not run full nodes anyway. Not sure if dial-up is still even used, HAM radio? I understand using a Satellite connection if you are in a remote location, however again this is not necessarily a critical group of people for running full nodes.
Currently only the top home broadband connections can realistically keep up at 400~700KB with 1MB peaks. Multiply it by 8 like BIP101 proposes as soon as January and almost no home users in the whole world will remain. Maybe in a couple jurisdictions. Also 8MB is the minimum, doubling up to 8GB is a fixed scaling scheme based on zero real information and pure speculation.
If you are referring to the entire world then this is true, however in the developed world it is not. Saying that almost no home users in the whole world will remain with eight megabyte blocks is also just not true, I have even looked up some numbers to prove my point.
20 MB = 160 Mbit
120 seconds to download the block = 120
160 / 120 = 1.33 Mbps downstream
1.33 * 2 = 2.66 Mbps downstream
98% of the US has at least 6mbps. Source:
http://www.broadbandmap.gov/blog/So under the BIP101 schedule more then ninety eight percent of the people in the US will be able to run full nodes on their home connections that they have today for at least the next four years. It is also good to keep in mind that just because we raise the blocksize limit it does not mean that the blocks will become consistently full, after all the limit is one megabyte today and yet we do not have one megabyte blocks.
This whole discussion is pointless if we don't agree to what is acceptable in this regard. This seems to be the case, because people like Gavin or Hearn think domestic users should not be nodes and have said so in numerous occasions. On the other hand most Core devs think it's essential.
I do not think it is true that Gavin and Mike said that domestic users users should not be nodes, they might have said that most domestic users might eventually not be able to run full nodes anymore but that is a position that I accept as well, which is different to saying that there should not be any domestic nodes.
There is no possible reconciliation between these two positions, as I've said many times. The trade-offs vary wildly between them and the endgame of each of them is a completely different Bitcoin to the other.
If you really think that is the case then a split is justified. I would like to point out here though that the path towards larger blocks is the original vision of Satoshi and I do question whether such a radical diversion from this original vision should not be implemented in an altcoin instead, considering the promise of the social contract. However the ability for our community to split is of course a justified action under such a scenario, were there are fundamental ideological differences that can not be resolved. I urge you to consider whether it would not be better to adopt a more comprised position, a middle ground like what I would favor. A conservative fixed scedule or dynamic block size limit, so that we do not need to split Bitcoin which according to my prediction would most likely delay global adoption by at least a decade. Think of all the good Bitcoin could do, it can save more peoples lives, if we could just work together and find a middle way.
This is why I don't consider this to be a debate, the positions are clear and they are irreconcilable.
Personally I side with Luke, at the far end that believes we should either freeze or scale down to allow tech to catch up so more people not less can afford to run their own nodes and control their transactions fully.
If enough people take the extreme position to not increase the blocksize or even scale it down then I believe splitting Bitcoin will be inevitable. I prefer to follow the original vision for Bitcoin by Satoshi Nakamoto, any divergence from that vision should be implemented in an altcoin instead, in that sense I am rather conservative in regards to Bitcoin. I do actually think that Bitcoin splitting in this way is inevitable over the long term, it is off political necessity, however I was hoping that this blocksize debate would not lead to that.
The eventual solution will be to not care how big it gets.
But for now, while it’s still small, it’s nice to keep it small so new users can get going faster. When I eventually implement client-only mode, that won’t matter much anymore.
The current system where every user is a network node is not the intended configuration for large scale. That would be like every Usenet user runs their own NNTP server. The design supports letting users just be users.
I’m sure that in 20 years there will either be very large (bitcoin) transaction volume or no volume.
