the 1MB limit will centralize bitcoin

[brg444]

If the economy and number of users grows, then I would suppose there will also be more people in whose best interest is to keep the network running.

Having an interest is not enough. We need to guarantee the ability for the common man to do so.

The free market will solve your problem because there is an incentive.  https://bitseed.org

look at that brg444, look at it closely its cost 160$, and i bet you we can get this sexy piece of shit to handle 4K TPS ( might need a HD upgrade tho)

it might be challenging to get this very minimal computer to process 4KTPS
but it would serve as a good benchmark as to what we would limit the requirement for a full node to be.

To improve Decentralization, make full nodes cheaper.

http://www.truthcoin.info/blog/measuring-decentralization/

at 160$ the cost of the machine is negligible and in most cases 0 because the user already has a computer 5X more powerful.
the bandwidth it would use is the costly part.
unlimited bandwidth plan would be required.

Sure, not a problem if you live in Montreal. If you live in China, India or other third world countries then you're just screwed I guess, too bad for you right  

third world countries can suck my big blocks.

LOL

no.  they just need to get >1MBPS or just run there full node on the cloud.

 

But them Chinese boys got more than 50% of the network so THEY are going to orphan you poor occidentals 

[adamstgBit]

If the economy and number of users grows, then I would suppose there will also be more people in whose best interest is to keep the network running.

Having an interest is not enough. We need to guarantee the ability for the common man to do so.

The free market will solve your problem because there is an incentive.  https://bitseed.org

look at that brg444, look at it closely its cost 160$, and i bet you we can get this sexy piece of shit to handle 4K TPS ( might need a HD upgrade tho)

it might be challenging to get this very minimal computer to process 4KTPS
but it would serve as a good benchmark as to what we would limit the requirement for a full node to be.

To improve Decentralization, make full nodes cheaper.

http://www.truthcoin.info/blog/measuring-decentralization/

at 160$ the cost of the machine is negligible and in most cases 0 because the user already has a computer 5X more powerful.
the bandwidth it would use is the costly part.
unlimited bandwidth plan would be required.

Sure, not a problem if you live in Montreal. If you live in China, India or other third world countries then you're just screwed I guess, too bad for you right  

third world countries can suck my big blocks.

LOL

no.  they just need to get >1MBPS or just run there full node on the cloud.

 

But them Chinese boys got more than 50% of the network so THEY are going to orphan you poor occidentals 

fucking Chinese people! 

[solex]

yes i know, stop yelling, 1MBPS allows for streaming a max of ~4,000 TPS
processing and storage is just as easy.
if you can't store 1MB of data pre second your HD sucks balls
if you can't process 1MB of TX pre second your GPU sucks balls.
point is a 1000$ computer with a home connection can deal with 4,000 TPS

did you expect bitcoin full nodes to run on embedded devices?

Meanwhile, the devs at Dogecoin conduct a stress test processing 5MB per 10 minutes and come up with flying colors:

http://digiconomist.net/interview-ross-nicoll

• Lastly, do you think Dogecoin might experience its own block size debate?

I think there’s a risk of it, yes, but so far no-one seems to be leading an anti-increase group, so I’d not anticipate problems. We use 1MB blocks, but every minute instead of 10 minutes, giving us effectively 10 times the throughput of Bitcoin, which reduces pressure for a change to be made soon. The recent stress test of Dogecoin on the testnet up to around 500kB blocks (so 5MB equivalent for Bitcoin) went far better than expected, which is extremely encouraging about our ability to scale. I’m going to write up a proposal once Dogecoin Core 1.10 is out, and that will most likely involve moving to parity with the BIP 101 block size increments.

If Dogecoin can do it then why is Bitcoin #FUKT?

[marky89]

Dogecoin did something? Let's immediately implement whatever Dogecoin did, into Bitcoin! Sorry, but I just can't put much faith in a Dogecoin implementation run on the test net. It's just not at all a reliable indicator.

[solex]

Dogecoin did something? Let's immediately implement whatever Dogecoin did, into Bitcoin! Sorry, but I just can't put much faith in a Dogecoin implementation run on the test net. It's just not at all a reliable indicator.

Do you even read?
They didn't implement anything, they ran a stress test. The Dogecoin software is the same as Bitcoin with a few minor changes and a goofy name. Their test is a valid independent metric in the context of the 1MB debate.

[marky89]

Dogecoin did something? Let's immediately implement whatever Dogecoin did, into Bitcoin! Sorry, but I just can't put much faith in a Dogecoin implementation run on the test net. It's just not at all a reliable indicator.

Do you even read?
They didn't implement anything, they ran a stress test. The Dogecoin software is the same as Bitcoin with a few minor changes and a goofy name. Their test is a valid independent metric in the context of the 1MB debate.

Thanks for ignoring the spirit of what I said. The burden is on you to support the claim that this represents a "valid independent metric in the context of the 1MB debate." You cannot test "BIP 101 block size increments" on the test net, either, nor can we account for potential attacks that may exist outside of this very limited test.

[Quantus]

60% of network traffic is spam.
20% of network traffic is micro transactions.

Make those sending less then 5 cents pay 1 cent and cut out all the transaction less then 1 cent and we won't have to worry about this issue for another 10 years.

[da2ce7]

Block-size "debate" summarized:

• Most Bitcoin tx are spam
• Blocks are getting full
• Must increase block-size or transactions will get more expensive!
• ? ? ? ?
• Profit!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1

[Quantus]

Block halfing day is coming '(45 weeks, 4 days, 17 hours, 20 minutes)'
Remember the network is secured by miners who earn money from block rewards and transaction fees.
In 46 weeks miners will lose 50% of there income. If we want a secure network we must pay for it with transaction fees.
Again 80% of the network traffic is 5 cents or lower. We need a fee based system; a free system can not support itself.


Bitcoin will never be free.  

[Quantus]

The system is self regulating. As the mem pool fills, transaction fees will rise 'by a few cents'.

People are already running custom node software that drops micro transactions from the memory pool. Spam attacks will no longer be an issue in the near future.

Those running full nodes can now adjust the size of the mempool and program their own rules for what transactions they propagate and what transaction they drop.

We need better ways to gauge 'necessary fees based on the mempool size' so people don't have to guess what fee to send when sending a payment.

But there will always be fees and those fees will rise from time to time based on network load.

[johnyj]

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 people 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.

There are many incentives for home users to run a full node, but of course not everyone

1. By running a full node you can make the sure the network is robust and secure, thus indirectly secure your investment (Suppose you treat bitcoin like gold as long term investment). Unlike gold, which is protected by the law of nature, bitcoin need its user's protection by running full nodes, and anyone who have serious amount of coins will definitely run a full node

2. By running a full node you have a direct insight of what is going on in the network, which is good for following the development in bitcoin

3. By running a full node you have much more control of the transactions (Look at the current coinwallet.eu coin give out scheme, if you don't have full node you can not even receive those 0.5 bitcoins in each private key )

[RGBKey]

This is a possible scenario, but it's something I don't see happening for a long time still.

[brg444]

what is happening here, people starting to make sense 

[adamstgBit]

what is happening here, people starting to make sense 

oh no iv been afk to long

[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 people 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.

There are many incentives for home users to run a full node, but of course not everyone

1. By running a full node you can make the sure the network is robust and secure, thus indirectly secure your investment (Suppose you treat bitcoin like gold as long term investment). Unlike gold, which is protected by the law of nature, bitcoin need its user's protection by running full nodes, and anyone who have serious amount of coins will definitely run a full node

2. By running a full node you have a direct insight of what is going on in the network, which is good for following the development in bitcoin

3. By running a full node you have much more control of the transactions (Look at the current coinwallet.eu coin give out scheme, if you don't have full node you can not even receive those 0.5 bitcoins in each private key )

1. i would suggests that if the user feel there is enough full node currently running he wont bother running 1 more... only if node count becomes dangerously low would a user do what you are suggesting. running a full node isn't exactly a lot of fun.

2. i have more insight going to blockchain.info.

3. you don't need a full node to import a wallet. there giving away 0.5BTC in each key?  

[brg444]

see that?

Bitcoin working like a champ.

[RGBKey]

1. i would suggests that if the user feel there is enough full node currently running he wont bother running 1 more... only if node count becomes dangerously low would a user do what you are suggesting. running a full node isn't exactly a lot of fun.

2. i have more insight going to blockchain.info.

3. you don't need a full node to import a wallet. there giving away 0.5BTC in each key?  

They're spamming really small inputs to try to "stress test" the network by giving away the money. Hundreds of people are trying to spend them and it's filling up mempool, but it's not really working like they wanted it to.

[adamstgBit]

60% of network traffic is spam.
20% of network traffic is micro transactions.

Make those sending less then 5 cents pay 1 cent and cut out all the transaction less then 1 cent and we won't have to worry about this issue for another 10 years.

most tx are >100$
most of the tx are not smap

your making shit up.

[adamstgBit]

1. i would suggests that if the user feel there is enough full node currently running he wont bother running 1 more... only if node count becomes dangerously low would a user do what you are suggesting. running a full node isn't exactly a lot of fun.

2. i have more insight going to blockchain.info.

3. you don't need a full node to import a wallet. there giving away 0.5BTC in each key?  

They're spamming really small inputs to try to "stress test" the network by giving away the money. Hundreds of people are trying to spend them and it's filling up mempool, but it's not really working like they wanted it to.

sounds like they are spamming the network just fine, whats more would they like?

[brg444]

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 people 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.

There are many incentives for home users to run a full node, but of course not everyone

1. By running a full node you can make the sure the network is robust and secure, thus indirectly secure your investment (Suppose you treat bitcoin like gold as long term investment). Unlike gold, which is protected by the law of nature, bitcoin need its user's protection by running full nodes, and anyone who have serious amount of coins will definitely run a full node

2. By running a full node you have a direct insight of what is going on in the network, which is good for following the development in bitcoin

3. By running a full node you have much more control of the transactions (Look at the current coinwallet.eu coin give out scheme, if you don't have full node you can not even receive those 0.5 bitcoins in each private key )

1. i would suggests that if the user feel there is enough full node currently running he wont bother running 1 more... only if node count becomes dangerously low would a user do what you are suggesting. running a full node isn't exactly a lot of fun.

2. i have more insight going to blockchain.info.

3. you don't need a full node to import a wallet. there giving away 0.5BTC in each key?  

1. What type of logic is that? Nodes will become commoditized and trivial to run. Running a full node coupled is still the most secure and private way to use Bitcoin. Some value these aspects a whole lot especially when dealing with millions of dollars.

2. But no privacy.

3. I suggest you go ahead and try sweeping one of these and see what happens.