I have already explained why we have less nodes today then we did in the past. I will repeat for the third time in this discussion that SPV wallets and web wallets and an influx of "normal" Bitcoin users who are not ideologically motivated to run a full node. This and the increased difficulty is part of the reason for this decline.
We are not at a all time low in terms of node count actually, node count has increased after the launch of XT, and since then it has actually stabilized. I do expect to see a trend reversal with increased adoption as we are already partially seeing today.
You are hopeless. Yes, that's an ad hominem and a non-argument. Still, yours are non-arguments as well.
It is not ad hominem since I am not attacking another person by saying this. It is an argument since it contains premises which entail a conclusion.
A simple counter example would be me introducing my friend to Bitcoin, he bought some Bitcoin and now he is running a full node from his home.
Anecdotal fallacy.
It is not an anecdotal fallacy when used to support the claim that increased adoption has a positive effect in terms of increasing the node count. This does not mean that under all circumstances and under increased adoption the node count will be increased because there are other variables and factors at work. I was arguing against brg444 claim or failure to acknowledge that adoption is a positive factor in terms of increasing the count. Surely you can acknowledge this aspect of the dynamics of the Bitcoin node count.
This is a clear example of adoption directly leading to increasing the node count, this does not imply that node count is therefore overall increased since there are other factors and variables at work. However you can not say that adoption does not lead to increasing the node count since it only takes one example to prove your claim wrong as I have just done so.
Ha-ha. Splitting hairs aside, your friend might as well stop running his node today in favor of SPV, and the node count would go back to the previous level.
He is ideologically motivated like myself and we both have powerful computers with good internet connections.
Can I conclude that adoption does not lead to increasing node counts?
I do not understand how you can make this conclusion since you have not made an argument.
If I fine-tune my statement, I can actually make it true.
But relevance is more important than winning an argument
I see so you have not made an argument. I think the truth is more important then relevance.
What's funny about your 'argument': if we raise blocksizes, see increased adoption
This is a classic strawman, I have never argued that increasing the blocksize would lead to increased adoption.
I have argued however that we need to increase the blocksize in anticipation of increased adoption and in case there are spikes of adoption possibly due to world events. Furthermore that if the blocksize is not increased in time then this would prevent and possibly cause a decline in adoption, because if the blocks did become consistently full then transactions would be rendered unreliable and much more expensive. This is what I would like to prevent by increasing the blocksize and not allowing the Bitcoin network to become overloaded and congested so to speak.
and the node count trend doesn't reverse, you can still argue the same: "I do expect to see a trend reversal with increased adoption as we are already partially seeing today.". And I guess you will.
Another strawman I suppose, this time projecting into the future of what I might say under hypothetical circumstances. If the node count does not increase with massive adoption and combined with a moderate blocksize increase then I will be proven wrong, unlike some other people on this thread, I can admit to being wrong sometimes. However that is not the trend I am expecting, time will tell to see whose theories will be proven correct.
If Bitcoin does not scale to accommodate a greater amount of transactions directly then this would impact node count as well when compared to allowing increased transactional capacity, since increased adoption would also lead to an increased node count, therefore increasing the blocksize needs to ideally be a balancing act between actual adoption and transaction volume.
Why do you keep repeating these lies?
If they where lies you would have been able to disprove them or at least effectively argue against my claims. So far you have failed to so, which is probably why you are now just resorting to calling me a liar.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1164464.0 Argument from ignorance/silence.
It is ridiculous for you to claim that I have an argument from ignorance/silence when I have extensively explained and argued for why we should increase the blocksize. The article I wrote on the subject certainly is evidence of this.
There's no way Dorian Satoshi Nakamoto is 6 foot.
On a serious note, I still do not understand how big blockers still don't seem to get it. We already have centralized mining, im still waiting for a convincing explanation of how centralizing the nodes would be a good idea (and this is what would happen once the blocks become too big and they will). Having to rely on offchain transactions isn't ideal, but the world isn't ideal, and it's certainly better than a group of 4 or 5 private companies owning most of the nodes.
Increasing the blocksize would not make mining more centralized. The blocksize has no impact on mining centralization whatsoever. I am not advocating centralizing the nodes either. You are correct in thinking that no solution is ideal which is why I think that increasing the blocksize is the best solution which maximizes decentralization and financial freedom compared to the other alternatives. If Bitcoin does not scale to accommodate a greater amount of transactions directly then this would impact node count as well when compared to allowing increased transactional capacity, since increased adoption would also lead to an increased node count, therefore increasing the blocksize needs to ideally be a balancing act between actual adoption and transaction volume.
Proof by assertion. That you continue repeating your opinions doesn't make them arguments.
I have made extensive arguments which have premises entailing conclusions. Just because you do not acknowledge my arguments it does not prove them wrong, since that would be an argument from silence or ignorance.
I clearly remember discussing mining centralization with you, where you insisted it's not worsened by larger blocks, because mining centralization != pool centralization, and miners have a choice selecting a pool. Well, in the spherical cows world, I could even agree. In reality, shit gets centralized.
This is indeed one aspect of the argument that I have made. Instead of rehashing all that I have said on the subject, you can go back to were we where discussing it or criticize my theory on the thread that i started which has the article I wrote on the subject on the opening page.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1164464.0To explain my position briefly though. I will use myself as an example as a small home miner. I am running a 10KW mining farm out of my home at the moment. I connect to a pool which hosts the full node for mining. Therefore as a miner I am not running a full node for the purpose of mining, all I do is sent the solved hash to the pool which is a very small amount of data, I could literally do this over a 56k connection, regardless of the blocksize.
The vast majority of the mining power today exists in this way, therefore increasing the difficulty of running a full node does not effect miners because they do not run full nodes, the pools do instead. I have gone further to separate the pools from the miners as being separate entities. This relationship and interaction is similar to the way that a representative democracy fuctions, as opposed to the direct democracy of the earlier Bitcoin mining ecosystem, which no longer exists. Over the last two years the mining ecosystem has radically changed which is why the older concepts and ideals of the mining ecosystem have become outdated. This is how Bitcoin mining functions today and it will not be possible to turn back the clock unless we radically change Bitcoin from what it is today. I think that Bitcoin mining works and I am happy to give control over the blocksize to the miners in the form of BIP100, since they are the people that are best incentivized to do what is good for Bitcoin.
