the 1MB limit will centralize bitcoin

[adamstgBit]

1MB limit will lead to higher fees, at one point only very large TX made by large entities will happen on the main chain. some poeple say that's fine, bitcoin is gold not pocket money. fine, then tell me what is the incentive for home users to run a full node when they can't even use the network? there is none, so they wont, only the large entities actually using the blockchain will run full nodes.

even worst, off chain solutions will likely involve a trusted 3rd party.

there you have it, my logic is irrefutable, the 1MB limit will centralize bitcoin!

 

[1714265406]

1714265406

[1714265406]

1714265406

[1714265406]

1714265406

[CIYAM]

Well Satoshi himself had stated that the vast majority of people would only run SPV nodes anyway so I'm not quite sure what point you are really making (am guessing it is a sarcastic point as your logic is apparently irrefutable).

Obviously the bigger the block size limit the less likely that any home nodes will be full ones but even with the current limit there are fewer and fewer people actually running full nodes so do you think if the block size limit were to be further reduced then that would change?

Or are you just saying that Bitcoin is becoming centralised?

[adamstgBit]

Well Satoshi himself had stated that the vast majority of people would only run SPV nodes anyway so I'm not quite sure what point you are really making.

Obviously the bigger the block size limit the less likely that any home nodes will be full ones.

sure thing, but also,
the higher the fees the less likely a home user will run a full node.
why run a full node on a network you can't afford to transact on?

[CIYAM]

the higher the fees the less likely a home user will run a full node.
why run a full node on a network you can't afford to transact on?

Hmm... well maybe you wouldn't run 24x7 but if you had a lot of BTC and did just the occasional tx you might still want to run a full node to help secure the network that is being used to hold your funds (and be more sure of your txs).

For sure if we are going to have enormous blocks to allow for everyone to buy a coffee using the blockchain directly then virtually no-one is going to run a full node (as you can't even run a full node on a smartphone which is what those buying coffees will be using - I don't see people bringing their laptop up to the counter to pay for their coffee).

So I think your logic is perhaps not so irrefutable.

[brg444]

Your logic is plain retarded, educate yourself:
http://www.truthcoin.info/blog/measuring-decentralization/

I think so: anyone, anywhere, would be able to make sure that they had gotten paid, without trusting a third party, or doing any other work whatsoever. And this option would be available to every human on the planet, no matter how oppressed/disadvantaged (and the only way for a government to “cut off the head” of the network would be to kill every human being on the planet).

On the other hand, what if the CONOP were expensive, such that only one agent in the entire world could run a full node (say, the United State Government)? This agent would control the network completely: perfect centralization. If someone “cut off its head”, this network would disintegrate.

Cost of Node-Option

To “know you’ve been paid” (ie “P2P money”) you need to know that the software won’t lose your money. After all, the definition of “paid” implies that the money now belongs to you and is controlled by you exclusively. Whether you lose your BTC to theft, or you lose them because the entire network collapsed, “you” have been “unpaid” (and you instead “know that you’ve not be paid”).

On top of that, if “the network” (users, merchants, service providers, …) switches, you have no choice but to switch. If you refuse to switch, and stay on the minority network, your money will be useless and you will be “unpaid”!

So the cost of “knowing you’ve been paid” (the cost of “the option to run a full Bitcoin node”), necessarily now includes maintenance items, which YOU must pay if YOU are to KNOW you’ve been paid: [1] the cost of “validating” any new set of rules and [2] the cost of preventing other people from being deceived into accepting unproven rules.

Because you can only know you’ll be paid if the network uses rules that allow you to spend your future income.

THE LAST DISCONTINUITY
Given our conclusion, the easier it is to start up a new full node, the more decentralized Bitcoin will be. How can we make full nodes cheaper?

I’d ignore mundane expenses like hardware and power. Instead, recall that, if a full node cannot be run anonymously, “the network” (full node entry) is effectively controlled by law enforcement, a central entity. Therefore, my view is that the current largest “cost” (and current bottleneck to Bitcoin scalability) is therefore the threat of persecution.

[brg444]

Well Satoshi himself had stated that the vast majority of people would only run SPV nodes anyway so I'm not quite sure what point you are really making.

Obviously the bigger the block size limit the less likely that any home nodes will be full ones.

sure thing, but also,
the higher the fees the less likely a home user will run a full node.
why run a full node on a network you can't afford to transact on?

To verify you've been paid.

You might not use the Bitcoin blockchain to transact but you depend on it to validate that you actually own the money and not trust another person to do so.

Even if most of your financial transactions are done using Layer-2 the whole system depends on the decentralization of the protocol layer. By running an node you exercise your right to enforce the network rules so that no one is able to cheat.

[adamstgBit]

but you've been forced to a sidechain, To verify you've been paid, you need to run the sidechain's full node now.  

[CIYAM]

but you've been forced to a sidechain, To verify you've been paid, you need to run the sidechain's full node now.  

If you're buying a cup of coffee - who cares?

Seriously are you saying this is a problem for the spender or the vendor?

(hint - vendors already have to take into account credit card fraud and fake bank bills)

[adamstgBit]

but you've been forced to a sidechain, To verify you've been paid, you need to run the sidechain's full node now.  

If you're buying a cup of coffee - who cares?

the guy accepting your weird sidechain payment cares.

[CIYAM]

the guy accepting your weird sidechain payment cares.

Too quick to reply - again so what?

Same problem with cash or credit cards.

If every Starbucks franchisee wants to run a full node then they can but of course that wouldn't make any financial sense would it?

[brg444]

but you've been forced to a sidechain, To verify you've been paid, you need to run the sidechain's full node now.  

Why do you bother sharing opinions about things you don't understand?

There is no such thing as a "sidechain node"

[brg444]

but you've been forced to a sidechain, To verify you've been paid, you need to run the sidechain's full node now.  

If you're buying a cup of coffee - who cares?

the guy accepting your weird sidechain payment cares.

then he best be able to run a bitcoin node else he's shit out of luck and has to "ask-a-friend"

[adamstgBit]

but you've been forced to a sidechain, To verify you've been paid, you need to run the sidechain's full node now.  

Why do you bother sharing opinions about things you don't understand?

There is no such thing as a "sidechain node"

sidechain secure themselves without nodes?

[adamstgBit]

but you've been forced to a sidechain, To verify you've been paid, you need to run the sidechain's full node now.  

If you're buying a cup of coffee - who cares?

the guy accepting your weird sidechain payment cares.

then he best be able to run a bitcoin node else he's shit out of luck and has to "ask-a-friend"

sidechain payments will be recorded on bitcoin's ledger?

[CIYAM]

sidechain payments will be recorded on bitcoin's ledger?

You as a vendor would have had to already agree to use a sidechain - you aren't "forced into it" by the buyer.

The sidechain is free to have a completely different approach (even a centralised one I would guess).

So in fact for Starbucks a suitable sidechain that is actually a centralised one (run by them) might actually make the most sense (least cost and least chance of fraud without impacting upon the main blockchain).

To some extent I think it can work much like a voucher or points system does (so you purchase Starbucks credits via Bitcoin that are spent using their sidechain).

[brg444]

but you've been forced to a sidechain, To verify you've been paid, you need to run the sidechain's full node now.  

If you're buying a cup of coffee - who cares?

the guy accepting your weird sidechain payment cares.

then he best be able to run a bitcoin node else he's shit out of luck and has to "ask-a-friend"

sidechain payments will be recorded on bitcoin's ledger?

well you got me there, not necessarily. but the primary interest of sidechains are not payments so this is really not a great example.

Lighning is the proper system to reference here and yes, all payments there can be referenced against a transaction in Bitcoin blockchain

[CIYAM]

That sounds very inconvenient for merchants and confusing for customers.

Bitcoin needs to be easier to use. As one of the Winklevoss twins said: people shouldn't have to deal with Bitcoin addresses.

Well actually it would be much simpler if you had an app that let you spend your Starbucks credits when you go to that store (with no need for a Bitcoin address to do so). As a payment system Bitcoin *sucks* as it is much easier to use virtually any other existing payment system (why people have got so enthused about Bitcoin as a payment system is actually beyond me).

If you find Bitcoin too hard to use then you use a fiat exchange to get your credits - so those that don't want to see a Bitcoin address don't need to and actually most likely don't want to use Bitcoin at all (all they want is a coffee).

Also trying to shove every single tx in the world into the blockchain is just plain stupid (and doesn't actually make things easier as it will just overload the network to the point you'd be waiting until your coffee got cold before the payment was accepted).

[adamstgBit]

That sounds very inconvenient for merchants and confusing for customers.

Bitcoin needs to be easier to use. As one of the Winklevoss twins said: people shouldn't have to deal with Bitcoin addresses.

Well actually it would be much simpler if you had an app that let you spend your Starbucks credits when you go to that store (with no need for a Bitcoin address to do so). As a payment system Bitcoin *sucks* as it is much easier to use virtually any other existing payment system (why people have got so enthused about Bitcoin as a payment system is actually beyond me).

If you find Bitcoin too hard to use then you use a fiat exchange to get your credits - so those that don't want to see a Bitcoin address don't need to and actually most likely don't want to use Bitcoin at all (all they want is a coffee).

Also trying to shove every single tx in the world into the blockchain is just plain stupid (and doesn't actually make things easier as it will just overload the network to the point you'd be waiting until your coffee got cold before the payment was accepted).

no one is suggesting we shove every single tx in the world into the blockchain, just bitcoin tx should appear on the blockchain.

[GreydonIselmoe]

That sounds very inconvenient for merchants and confusing for customers.

Bitcoin needs to be easier to use. As one of the Winklevoss twins said: people shouldn't have to deal with Bitcoin addresses.

Well actually it would be much simpler if you had an app that let you spend your Starbucks credits when you go to that store (with no need for a Bitcoin address to do so). As a payment system Bitcoin *sucks* as it is much easier to use virtually any other existing payment system (why people have got so enthused about Bitcoin as a payment system is actually beyond me).

If you find Bitcoin too hard to use then you use a fiat exchange to get your credits - so those that don't want to see a Bitcoin address don't need to and actually most likely don't want to use Bitcoin at all (all they want is a coffee).

Also trying to shove every single tx in the world into the blockchain is just plain stupid (and doesn't actually make things easier as it will just overload the network to the point you'd be waiting until your coffee got cold before the payment was accepted).

Did someone say Starbucks "Credits"? I think having the large businesses using their own coin would be interesting.. would allow a developed sidechain coin like CRE to find a niche!

In terms of bitcoin becoming more centralized, that's just inevitable as large entities see different ways to exploit Bitcoin for profits. Not everyone cares about the future of the coin, many just care about their return on investment.

[CIYAM]

Seriously IMO the one mistake that Satoshi made was to compare Bitcoin to other centralised payment systems.

The biggest area that Bitcoin should have already made an impact in is remittance yet what impact has it made in that area so far (hint - virtually none)?

So instead of focusing on the low hanging fruit of remittance (an industry worth billions in profits every year) we are now relentlessly arguing about people buying their coffees with Bitcoin (which pretty much no-one is going to do anyway as hardly anyone even has enough BTC to buy a coffee).