[POLL] Which is more centralizing? Small Blocks or Big Blocks?

[jonald_fyookball]

Here are the basic arguments for each case as I understand them:

Rationale for "small blocks centralize bitcoin":  When transactions are forced off chain, we'll increasingly rely on trusted parties rather than trustless main chain Bitcoin.
Rationale for "big blocks centralize bitcoin":  Bigger blocks will increase costs of running a full node, and make slower connection miners more uncompetitive.

[Peter R]

Also: bigger blocks = more transactions = more users = more nodes = more miners = more security in numbers = higher prices = more transactions…

More is better. It's not complicated : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3r6udb4LNcw

[brg444]

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

A great majority if Bitcoin users already rely on third parties. Layered networks on top of Bitcoin will provide trustless ways to manage your money without having to directly transact on Bitcoin blockchain

To improve Decentralization, make full nodes cheaper.

[ebliever]

If the blocks were *extremely* large I could buy the notion that the hardware costs would be prohibitive. But per Moores Law the jump to 8 MB from 1 MB six years ago is actually regressive - at 18 months per doubling we ought to be at 16 MB by now.

[brg444]

Also: bigger blocks = more transactions = more users = more nodes = more miners = more security in numbers = higher prices = more transactions…

More is better. It's not complicated : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3r6udb4LNcw

Bitcoin has more users and more transactions than ever and the node count is at its lowest since its early days.

This is a PEER-TO-PEER network.

A peer in the Bitcoin network is a node.

MORE USERS = MORE NODES

MORE TRANSACTIONS != MORE USERS

[Mickeyb]

Rationale for "big blocks centralize bitcoin":  Bigger blocks will increase costs of running a full node, and make slower connection miners more uncompetitive.

The way I started seeing it, if you don't have a basic enough Internet connection to serve a Bitcoin network, than you don't need to be doing it at all.

Also, isn't the biggest problem of the Internet in China? Haven't they agreed that they can push 8MB blocks anyways? So why not increase blocks in the core right away to 8MB? Questions for devs that don't want a change.

[brg444]

Rationale for "big blocks centralize bitcoin":  Bigger blocks will increase costs of running a full node, and make slower connection miners more uncompetitive.

The way I started seeing it, if you don't have a basic enough Internet connection to serve a Bitcoin network, than you don't need to be doing it at all.

Also, isn't the biggest problem of the Internet in China? Haven't they agreed that they can push 8MB blocks anyways? So why not increase blocks in the core right away to 8MB? Questions for devs that don't want a change.

You do understand the point of running a nodes is not only to "serve the Bitcoin network" but also avail yourself with its full power.

If you don't run a node then you are relying on someone else to process your transactions.

[NorrisK]

With the speed the avarge internet speed has increased in US and europe, we can expect china to have more than suitable avarage speed to handle bigger blocks.. And else they relocate their mining farms to a better location or something...

[onemorexmr]

If you don't run a node then you are relying on someone else to process your transactions.

miners process transactions. no one else.

you just need the UTXO with that you can submit your transactions to the miner yourself (eligius even have/had a web-frontend for this)

[Brewins]

small block size will centralizing bitcoin not big blocks, with small block size only transaction with high fees will confirmed so it will out of reach of normal users only limited big guys who pay more fees will get confirmation and control

[Zarathustra]

Also: bigger blocks = more transactions = more users = more nodes = more miners = more security in numbers = higher prices = more transactions…

More is better. It's not complicated : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3r6udb4LNcw

Bitcoin has more users and more transactions than ever and the node count is at its lowest since its early days.

This is a PEER-TO-PEER network.

A peer in the Bitcoin network is a node.

MORE USERS = MORE NODES

MORE TRANSACTIONS != MORE USERS

58 'posts' today. Why are you fulltime spamming all the threads?

[DooMAD]

The answer to the question in the OP is apparently "both".  So we might as well accept it and aim for somewhere in the middle.  Medium blocks it is.  Argument over.  

If only it could be that simple.  

Also: bigger blocks = more transactions = more users = more nodes = more miners = more security in numbers = higher prices = more transactions…

More is better. It's not complicated : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3r6udb4LNcw

blah blah blah

58 'posts' today. Why are you fulltime spamming all the threads?

Can't convert people to the elite-chain way of thinking if he doesn't get the MP-inspired rhetoric out there somehow.  There's only a limited time to try and steer the direction we choose into one that primarily benefits them over the average user.  Good thing we're not going to do that, though.  Bitcoin will naturally remain open, permissionless and neutral.  It's not going to be co-opted by a few zealots.  There's a happy middle ground to be found somewhere and damnit, we're going to find it.

[adamstgBit]

brg444 is the only one that voted bigger blocks 

[Peter R]

Also: bigger blocks = more transactions = more users = more nodes = more miners = more security in numbers = higher prices = more transactions…

More is better. It's not complicated : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3r6udb4LNcw

…blah…blah…blah…

Did you watch the video?  Even the little kids get it without anyone having to teach it to them

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3r6udb4LNcw

[brg444]

brg444 is the only one that voted bigger blocks 

I didn't vote 

[brg444]

Also: bigger blocks = more transactions = more users = more nodes = more miners = more security in numbers = higher prices = more transactions…

More is better. It's not complicated : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3r6udb4LNcw

Bitcoin has more users and more transactions than ever and the node count is at its lowest since its early days.

This is a PEER-TO-PEER network.

A peer in the Bitcoin network is a node.

MORE USERS = MORE NODES

MORE TRANSACTIONS != MORE USERS

58 'posts' today. Why are you fulltime spamming all the threads?

Gathering quotes to put together somes good jokes for this weekend's conference  

[Habeler876]

I would rather have larger blocks than to expand trust or to rely on third parties. The whole point was for bitcoin to be more decentralized,
and not to force it's users on relying on anyone other than the network itself.
I don't buy the story that the number of full nodes will go down in link to bigger blocks. Today bandwidth and storage are pretty cheap.

[jonald_fyookball]

so who voted for big blocks= centralizing so far except brg? 

[DooMAD]

so who voted for big blocks= centralizing so far except brg? 

It's reached the point now where it doesn't matter whether you think it should be large blocks or small blocks.  Both options are equally contentious in their own way.  We can't make it prohibitively expensive to transact on-chain, but at the same time, we can't make it prohibitively expensive in terms of resources required to run a node.  We should move away from "big vs small" and focus on where to strike a balance between the two.  It's the only sensible way forward.

[adamstgBit]

so who voted for big blocks= centralizing so far except brg? 

It's reached the point now where it doesn't matter whether you think it should be large blocks or small blocks.  Both options are equally contentious in their own way.  We can't make it prohibitively expensive to transact on-chain, but at the same time, we can't make it prohibitively expensive in terms of resources required to run a node.  We should move away from "big vs small" and focus on where to strike a balance between the two.  It's the only sensible way forward.

yup

i vote for 1GB block limit