Thanks to people who support 1-2 MB blocks - great idea u fools...

[adamstgBit]

Again, this video is just BitcoinXT in different clothes. The problem is easily solved by the very thing that freaks the fat guy in the video out - fees. You pay a higher fee (3 cents?) you get your transaction processed faster. You pay no fee you might have to wait 30 minutes to 3 hours.

For instance, if I'm sending 0.4btc to my mother in the deepest darkest jungles of africa I don't care if it takes 3 hours to confirm. I send with no fee and volia. I'm happy. She gets her coins. She pays the local warlord 0.1 btc for security.

Now, say I'm sitting at a register and I need to have a fast transaction. I pay 0.02 btc for a sandwich. The merchant takes my 0.02 btc, allows 3 cents USD for the fee so he knows he's paid almost immediately, and I leave with a full belly.

You guys keep thinking that 1 btc should equal $300 forever, but that's ridiculous. The currency will be worth more due to inflation. And as fees rise you'll pay $0.50 USD for an ultra fast transaction, but it will never be more than the MARKET can bear. It's the way markets work.


Quit monkeying with the system and crying doom and gloom. Bitcoin is great. Use it and enjoy yourself.

Have none of you guys studied fiat currency? You're setting a very bad precedent and making bitcoin seem unstable, killing the likelyhood of more adoption by the masses.

Edit: Going slowly through the video segment this guy seems to think that charity and goodwill will carry the mining community, but that's insane. Would you work all day for free hoping someone would slip a nickle your way?

This. Let a fee market develop is the way to go vs ruining decentralized nodes. If you want a better service pay more for it. It's still free goddammit, if you want to do it for free then wait your ass until the transaction gets confirmed or pay a smaller fee if anything.
Bitcoin will eventually be valuable as hell because it only gets more scarce with time. No one is going to keep the mining process going without incentives so the fee market is the way to solve this.

if you want fees provide 25BTC and you limit the number of TX to 1000 ~1MB's worth your looking at like 5$ fee pre transaction

[VeritasSapere]

Again, this video is just BitcoinXT in different clothes. The problem is easily solved by the very thing that freaks the fat guy in the video out - fees. You pay a higher fee (3 cents?) you get your transaction processed faster. You pay no fee you might have to wait 30 minutes to 3 hours.

For instance, if I'm sending 0.4btc to my mother in the deepest darkest jungles of africa I don't care if it takes 3 hours to confirm. I send with no fee and volia. I'm happy. She gets her coins. She pays the local warlord 0.1 btc for security.

Now, say I'm sitting at a register and I need to have a fast transaction. I pay 0.02 btc for a sandwich. The merchant takes my 0.02 btc, allows 3 cents USD for the fee so he knows he's paid almost immediately, and I leave with a full belly.

You guys keep thinking that 1 btc should equal $300 forever, but that's ridiculous. The currency will be worth more due to inflation. And as fees rise you'll pay $0.50 USD for an ultra fast transaction, but it will never be more than the MARKET can bear. It's the way markets work.


Quit monkeying with the system and crying doom and gloom. Bitcoin is great. Use it and enjoy yourself.

Have none of you guys studied fiat currency? You're setting a very bad precedent and making bitcoin seem unstable, killing the likelyhood of more adoption by the masses.

Edit: Going slowly through the video segment this guy seems to think that charity and goodwill will carry the mining community, but that's insane. Would you work all day for free hoping someone would slip a nickle your way?

This. Let a fee market develop is the way to go vs ruining decentralized nodes. If you want a better service pay more for it. It's still free goddammit, if you want to do it for free then wait your ass until the transaction gets confirmed or pay a smaller fee if anything.
Bitcoin will eventually be valuable as hell because it only gets more scarce with time. No one is going to keep the mining process going without incentives so the fee market is the way to solve this.

if you want fees provide 25BTC and you limit the number of TX to 1000 ~1MB's worth your looking at like 5$ fee pre transaction

Bitcoins Value in the future is not guaranteed, it must still compete with other cryptocurrencies, crippling the transaction limit will not allow Bitcoin to effectively compete. Also having a higher volume at a lower price would be better then having a lower volume at a higher price.

[brg444]

Again, this video is just BitcoinXT in different clothes. The problem is easily solved by the very thing that freaks the fat guy in the video out - fees. You pay a higher fee (3 cents?) you get your transaction processed faster. You pay no fee you might have to wait 30 minutes to 3 hours.

For instance, if I'm sending 0.4btc to my mother in the deepest darkest jungles of africa I don't care if it takes 3 hours to confirm. I send with no fee and volia. I'm happy. She gets her coins. She pays the local warlord 0.1 btc for security.

Now, say I'm sitting at a register and I need to have a fast transaction. I pay 0.02 btc for a sandwich. The merchant takes my 0.02 btc, allows 3 cents USD for the fee so he knows he's paid almost immediately, and I leave with a full belly.

You guys keep thinking that 1 btc should equal $300 forever, but that's ridiculous. The currency will be worth more due to inflation. And as fees rise you'll pay $0.50 USD for an ultra fast transaction, but it will never be more than the MARKET can bear. It's the way markets work.


Quit monkeying with the system and crying doom and gloom. Bitcoin is great. Use it and enjoy yourself.

Have none of you guys studied fiat currency? You're setting a very bad precedent and making bitcoin seem unstable, killing the likelyhood of more adoption by the masses.

Edit: Going slowly through the video segment this guy seems to think that charity and goodwill will carry the mining community, but that's insane. Would you work all day for free hoping someone would slip a nickle your way?

This. Let a fee market develop is the way to go vs ruining decentralized nodes. If you want a better service pay more for it. It's still free goddammit, if you want to do it for free then wait your ass until the transaction gets confirmed or pay a smaller fee if anything.
Bitcoin will eventually be valuable as hell because it only gets more scarce with time. No one is going to keep the mining process going without incentives so the fee market is the way to solve this.

if you want fees provide 25BTC and you limit the number of TX to 1000 ~1MB's worth your looking at like 5$ fee pre transaction

Bitcoins Value in the future is not guaranteed, it must still compete with other cryptocurrencies, crippling the transaction limit will not allow Bitcoin to effectively compete. Also having a higher volume at a lower price would be better then having a lower volume at a higher price.

Bitcoin never competed on the basis of MOAR transactions else it would have lost long time ago.

[tl121]

As discussions on previous pages indicated, linear increase in block size may cause the effective bandwidth in the network to grow exponentially due to peers sending the same data to to each other many times. So it's not 1MB per every 10 minutes, the actual bandwidth is much higher.

Bitcoin does not use a stupid block propagation algorithm, such as would be needed to create exponential overhead.  It may have overhead that is constant in node connectivity, whereby a node receives the same block from each of its neighbors.  However, if so, this is easily fixed by flooding the small block header to each neighbor once, but having neighbors request the block data from only one neighbor.  In this case, each node receives only one copy of each block.  (Well connected nodes with many fast connections, may send multiple copies to many less connected nodes, but poorly connected nodes will send few copies, with the number of "takeoffs" being equal to the number of "landings".)  There is the opportunity for fine tuning the request process, so that nodes request data from new blocks from those neighbors that are known to have a fast ability to send them.  There may be some small overhead related to the discovery process.  (These kinds of issues exist in other peer to peer networks such as bittorrent and have been solved.)

[VeritasSapere]

Again, this video is just BitcoinXT in different clothes. The problem is easily solved by the very thing that freaks the fat guy in the video out - fees. You pay a higher fee (3 cents?) you get your transaction processed faster. You pay no fee you might have to wait 30 minutes to 3 hours.

For instance, if I'm sending 0.4btc to my mother in the deepest darkest jungles of africa I don't care if it takes 3 hours to confirm. I send with no fee and volia. I'm happy. She gets her coins. She pays the local warlord 0.1 btc for security.

Now, say I'm sitting at a register and I need to have a fast transaction. I pay 0.02 btc for a sandwich. The merchant takes my 0.02 btc, allows 3 cents USD for the fee so he knows he's paid almost immediately, and I leave with a full belly.

You guys keep thinking that 1 btc should equal $300 forever, but that's ridiculous. The currency will be worth more due to inflation. And as fees rise you'll pay $0.50 USD for an ultra fast transaction, but it will never be more than the MARKET can bear. It's the way markets work.


Quit monkeying with the system and crying doom and gloom. Bitcoin is great. Use it and enjoy yourself.

Have none of you guys studied fiat currency? You're setting a very bad precedent and making bitcoin seem unstable, killing the likelyhood of more adoption by the masses.

Edit: Going slowly through the video segment this guy seems to think that charity and goodwill will carry the mining community, but that's insane. Would you work all day for free hoping someone would slip a nickle your way?

This. Let a fee market develop is the way to go vs ruining decentralized nodes. If you want a better service pay more for it. It's still free goddammit, if you want to do it for free then wait your ass until the transaction gets confirmed or pay a smaller fee if anything.
Bitcoin will eventually be valuable as hell because it only gets more scarce with time. No one is going to keep the mining process going without incentives so the fee market is the way to solve this.

if you want fees provide 25BTC and you limit the number of TX to 1000 ~1MB's worth your looking at like 5$ fee pre transaction

Bitcoins Value in the future is not guaranteed, it must still compete with other cryptocurrencies, crippling the transaction limit will not allow Bitcoin to effectively compete. Also having a higher volume at a lower price would be better then having a lower volume at a higher price.

Bitcoin never competed on the basis of MOAR transactions else it would have lost long time ago.

I never said that it should, however allowing the transactions to become unreliable by allowing the network to become overloaded and at a later point allowing the transactions to become very expensive, would not be good for adoption especially when in competition with other cryptocurrencies that have already solved these problems.

[iCEBREAKER]

it would not make sense to use the worst possible examples as our baseline.

That baseline doesn't make sense if your goal is to optimize tx per second.  But why bother, when Visa/Paypal/Square can do that already very well.

OTOH, if you GAF about survivability of the diverse/diffuse/defensible/resilient network, you plan for the worst (and hope for the best).

Gavin wants to plan according to some rosy vision of the future, where the economy is all fine and dandy thanks to Helicopter Ben printing endless FunBux.

I want Bitcoin to survive World War Three (working subtitle 'Requiem for the Petrodollar').

That's not going to happen if Bitcoin lives in first strike targets like Google.mil datacenters.

[Chris_Sabian]

it would not make sense to use the worst possible examples as our baseline.

That baseline doesn't make sense if your goal is to optimize tx per second.  But why bother, when Visa/Paypal/Square can do that already very well.

OTOH, if you GAF about survivability of the diverse/diffuse/defensible/resilient network, you plan for the worst (and hope for the best).

Gavin wants to plan according to some rosy vision of the future, where the economy is all fine and dandy thanks to Helicopter Ben printing endless FunBux.

I want Bitcoin to survive World War Three (working subtitle 'Requiem for the Petrodollar').

That's not going to happen if Bitcoin lives in first strike targets like Google.mil datacenters.

Just to be a realist for a minute, if there is a WW III, then I would value many other things that bitcoin.  Solar panels, food source, water supply, etc.

I suppose that what is the future that we are trying to achieve with bitcoin?  Decentralized?  tx per second?  Everyday use?

[coalitionfor8mb]

As discussions on previous pages indicated, linear increase in block size may cause the effective bandwidth in the network to grow exponentially due to peers sending the same data to to each other many times. So it's not 1MB per every 10 minutes, the actual bandwidth is much higher.

Bitcoin does not use a stupid block propagation algorithm, such as would be needed to create exponential overhead.  It may have overhead that is constant in node connectivity, whereby a node receives the same block from each of its neighbors.  However, if so, this is easily fixed by flooding the small block header to each neighbor once, but having neighbors request the block data from only one neighbor.  In this case, each node receives only one copy of each block.  (Well connected nodes with many fast connections, may send multiple copies to many less connected nodes, but poorly connected nodes will send few copies, with the number of "takeoffs" being equal to the number of "landings".)  There is the opportunity for fine tuning the request process, so that nodes request data from new blocks from those neighbors that are known to have a fast ability to send them.  There may be some small overhead related to the discovery process.  (These kinds of issues exist in other peer to peer networks such as bittorrent and have been solved.)

I've been thinking in the same direction.
I mean, it doesn't have to be exponential.

If every full node receives each transaction only once(?), then there was a proposal to only send a block template and let each node reconstruct the actual block from the list of transactions and the data it already has in its memory pool. A node would then only need to request missing transactions (if any) from other peers.

I don't know if that was implemented or not, but a good implementation would likely approximate a linear bandwidth increase (relative to block size cap increase). Still, I wouldn't aim much higher (than 8MB) for the time being simply because those solutions need to be deployed first and even then we need to make sure that different parts of the world can join the network easily in order to keep the whole system properly balanced.

[mallard]

jgarzik suggests in his talk that Fidelity investment company has a beta bitcoin project which it is cannot turn on, because it would "max out" bitcoin capacity and future capacity growth is unknown

Bitcoin is not a service layer for Fidelity investment's purposes. If they need that much data, they can run their proper altcoin or use upper-layer-Bitcoin-technologies.

It's sickening to read all the FUD that is posted by altcoiners referring to an urgency to raise blocks. People who fall for this propaganda mostly don't understand, that block size increases do not solve Bitcoin's scaling problem. To scale Bitcoin, additional solutions like sidechains are needed. These are being developed right now.

Giving up decentralization for a quick buck will kill Bitcoin.

ya.ya.yo!

That's because you have the false premise that bigger blocks = centralization. This is only true if you think the free market doesn't work and can't come up with capacity solutions. 

But bigger blocks is just pushing the problem into the future.
If you had a screen recording program that produced massive video files; you would probably try to make them smaller instead of trying to buy a bigger hard drive.

[adamstgBit]

jgarzik suggests in his talk that Fidelity investment company has a beta bitcoin project which it is cannot turn on, because it would "max out" bitcoin capacity and future capacity growth is unknown

Bitcoin is not a service layer for Fidelity investment's purposes. If they need that much data, they can run their proper altcoin or use upper-layer-Bitcoin-technologies.

It's sickening to read all the FUD that is posted by altcoiners referring to an urgency to raise blocks. People who fall for this propaganda mostly don't understand, that block size increases do not solve Bitcoin's scaling problem. To scale Bitcoin, additional solutions like sidechains are needed. These are being developed right now.

Giving up decentralization for a quick buck will kill Bitcoin.

ya.ya.yo!

That's because you have the false premise that bigger blocks = centralization. This is only true if you think the free market doesn't work and can't come up with capacity solutions. 

But bigger blocks is just pushing the problem into the future.
If you had a screen recording program that produced massive video files; you would probably try to make them smaller instead of trying to buy a bigger hard drive.

but as the 1MB sayer say it's not really a problem because of the fee market

so push block limit  to the max and then in the future let fees run up.

[iCEBREAKER]

it would not make sense to use the worst possible examples as our baseline.

That baseline doesn't make sense if your goal is to optimize tx per second.  But why bother, when Visa/Paypal/Square can do that already very well.

OTOH, if you GAF about survivability of the diverse/diffuse/defensible/resilient network, you plan for the worst (and hope for the best).

Gavin wants to plan according to some rosy vision of the future, where the economy is all fine and dandy thanks to Helicopter Ben printing endless FunBux.

I want Bitcoin to survive World War Three (working subtitle 'Requiem for the Petrodollar').

That's not going to happen if Bitcoin lives in first strike targets like Google.mil datacenters.

Just to be a realist for a minute, if there is a WW III, then I would value many other things that bitcoin.  Solar panels, food source, water supply, etc.

I suppose that what is the future that we are trying to achieve with bitcoin?  Decentralized?  tx per second?  Everyday use?

All of those, but particular to different aspects of the Bitcoin gestalt.

Uppercase-B Bitcoin (or lowercase in Szabo notation) the first viable and most secure ecash competes with gold and central banks.

Lowercase-b bitcoin (or uppercase in Szabo notation) the blockchain technology competes with Visa/Paypal/Square (via altcoins now and SC/LN later).

Gold has kept its value through two world wars (and still gets you across guarded borders better than food/drinks/gadgets).

Bitcoin will not just keep its value in the exorbitant violence and chaos concomitant to petrodollar collapse (ie WW3), it will arise to take its rightful place as the world's reserve currency.

Start reading here, if you want to appreciate the "future that we are trying to achieve with bitcoin."

Digital cash is the premier example of a digital bearer certificate.

[Zarathustra]

it would not make sense to use the worst possible examples as our baseline.

That baseline doesn't make sense if your goal is to optimize tx per second.  But why bother, when Visa/Paypal/Square can do that already very well.

OTOH, if you GAF about survivability of the diverse/diffuse/defensible/resilient network, you plan for the worst (and hope for the best).

Gavin wants to plan according to some rosy vision of the future, where the economy is all fine and dandy thanks to Helicopter Ben printing endless FunBux.

I want Bitcoin to survive World War Three (working subtitle 'Requiem for the Petrodollar').

That's not going to happen if Bitcoin lives in first strike targets like Google.mil datacenters.

World War Three? Are you dreaming? Einstein knew a long time ago that a World War Three would be the last one.

[Holliday]

it would not make sense to use the worst possible examples as our baseline.

That baseline doesn't make sense if your goal is to optimize tx per second.  But why bother, when Visa/Paypal/Square can do that already very well.

OTOH, if you GAF about survivability of the diverse/diffuse/defensible/resilient network, you plan for the worst (and hope for the best).

Gavin wants to plan according to some rosy vision of the future, where the economy is all fine and dandy thanks to Helicopter Ben printing endless FunBux.

I want Bitcoin to survive World War Three (working subtitle 'Requiem for the Petrodollar').

That's not going to happen if Bitcoin lives in first strike targets like Google.mil datacenters.

World War Three? Are you dreaming? Einstein knew a long time ago that a World War Three would be the last one.

World War Three is a perpetual state of war. Much of the world is already there and has been for some time.

[brg444]

it would not make sense to use the worst possible examples as our baseline.

That baseline doesn't make sense if your goal is to optimize tx per second.  But why bother, when Visa/Paypal/Square can do that already very well.

OTOH, if you GAF about survivability of the diverse/diffuse/defensible/resilient network, you plan for the worst (and hope for the best).

Gavin wants to plan according to some rosy vision of the future, where the economy is all fine and dandy thanks to Helicopter Ben printing endless FunBux.

I want Bitcoin to survive World War Three (working subtitle 'Requiem for the Petrodollar').

That's not going to happen if Bitcoin lives in first strike targets like Google.mil datacenters.

World War Three? Are you dreaming? Einstein knew a long time ago that a World War Three would be the last one.

World War Three is a perpetual state of war. Much of the world is already there and has been for some time.

Well put. A worldwide cold war fought with weapons of financial destruction.

[adamstgBit]

it would not make sense to use the worst possible examples as our baseline.

That baseline doesn't make sense if your goal is to optimize tx per second.  But why bother, when Visa/Paypal/Square can do that already very well.

OTOH, if you GAF about survivability of the diverse/diffuse/defensible/resilient network, you plan for the worst (and hope for the best).

Gavin wants to plan according to some rosy vision of the future, where the economy is all fine and dandy thanks to Helicopter Ben printing endless FunBux.

I want Bitcoin to survive World War Three (working subtitle 'Requiem for the Petrodollar').

That's not going to happen if Bitcoin lives in first strike targets like Google.mil datacenters.

World War Three? Are you dreaming? Einstein knew a long time ago that a World War Three would be the last one.

World War Three is a perpetual state of war. Much of the world is already there and has been for some time.

Well put. A worldwide cold war fought with weapons of financial destruction.

no real weapons...

team america world police is always out there spreading democracy and such

[iCEBREAKER]

Well I have an average connection for Europe and i could easily support two gigabyte blocks from home, eight megabyte blocks would not be a problem at all.

How long would it take to transmit a 10mb block across the network?  It can't be more than a few seconds.  Besides, this debate about block size should be settled now.  Sooner is better than later.

No, just no. If you really believe so it shows how very little you understand how Bitcoin works.

Well-known cryptographer and digital currency veteran Nick Szabo explained:

So a 1MB block takes vastly more resources than a 1MB web page, for example, because it has to be transmitted, processed and stored with such high redundancy for Bitcoin to achieve its automated integrity.

https://bitcoinmagazine.com/21919/decentralist-perspective-bitcoin-might-need-small-blocks/

"Processed" refers (among other things) to verification of the tx in new blocks.  Verification times are superlinear w/r/t max block size, so one 8MB block could take much longer to process than eight 1MB blocks (depending on how intricately and/or deviously the tx are constructed).

Gavin thought he could just create a 100k max_tx_size as a band-aid to get around this problem, but that idea turned out to be a non-starter.

And that's (yet another reason) why the block size isn't going to change any time soon.

The people who can't handle that truth should just go play outside for a while, and forget all about Bitcoin for a year or three.

Isn't it adorable LunacySapere thinks he can "easily support two gigabyte blocks from home?"

I guess he hasn't got to the part of the Bitcoin FAQ where it explains he'd need to be able to send out 8 copies of those 2GB blocks in under 10 seconds.

[Holliday]

Well I have an average connection for Europe and i could easily support two gigabyte blocks from home, eight megabyte blocks would not be a problem at all. This person in Florida needs to either get a new internet provider or update his client by the sounds of it. lol

Did you read my posts in this thread? I've had to drastically reduce the connectivity of my full node (latest Core release) running on it's own dedicated hardware (modern quad-core CPU, 16GB RAM, SSD) in order to keep the home network functional for other daily use demands.

My node will happily eat as much upload speed as I give it and I have top 10% home internet speeds (probably better). It can bring simple web surfing to a standstill if I let it.

Nodes don't just accept blocks. Most of my bandwidth use is on the upload side (sharing data with other peers)! Larger blocks will obviously have a direct impact on the amount of data shared.

Do you run a node or are you just guessing?

[iCEBREAKER]

it would not make sense to use the worst possible examples as our baseline.

That baseline doesn't make sense if your goal is to optimize tx per second.  But why bother, when Visa/Paypal/Square can do that already very well.

OTOH, if you GAF about survivability of the diverse/diffuse/defensible/resilient network, you plan for the worst (and hope for the best).

Gavin wants to plan according to some rosy vision of the future, where the economy is all fine and dandy thanks to Helicopter Ben printing endless FunBux.

I want Bitcoin to survive World War Three (working subtitle 'Requiem for the Petrodollar').

That's not going to happen if Bitcoin lives in first strike targets like Google.mil datacenters.

World War Three? Are you dreaming? Einstein knew a long time ago that a World War Three would be the last one.

World War Three is a perpetual state of war. Much of the world is already there and has been for some time.

Well put. A worldwide cold war fought with weapons of financial destruction.

Bitcoin needs to survive the current 'Cold War 2' perpetual state of war fought with weapons of financial destruction.

And then it needs to survive WW3, which is entirely possible.  Einstein's anti-nuke hippie-dippie scare tactic blather about WW4 being fought with sticks and stones is just asinine objectively pro-Marxist counterfactual surrender-monkey BS.  Nuclear Winter was the Global Warming (popular bogyman) of his day...

We're not going to blanket the earth with mushroom clouds (it's too big and that would cost a fortune  ).

The kinetic action will be by precision munitions confined to very select ultra-high-value targets, such as the Google.mil data centers Hearn would so dearly love Bitcoin to be within constrained.

After the petrodollar's bloody last hurrah and BTC/XMR ascendency, WW4 will be fought between private security providers and polymorphic assassin guilds governed by smart contracts....while self-owned drone mercenaries whose AI play both sides against the middle...

Which brings us to WW5, the War Against the Machines.  Personally, I'm cheering for Skynet.   

[adamstgBit]

Well I have an average connection for Europe and i could easily support two gigabyte blocks from home, eight megabyte blocks would not be a problem at all. This person in Florida needs to either get a new internet provider or update his client by the sounds of it. lol

Did you read my posts in this thread? I've had to drastically reduce the connectivity of my full node (latest Core release) running on it's own dedicated hardware (modern quad-core CPU, 16GB RAM, SSD) in order to keep the home network functional for other daily use demands.

My node will happily eat as much upload speed as I give it and I have top 10% home internet speeds (probably better). It can bring simple web surfing to a standstill if I let it.

Nodes don't just accept blocks. Most of my bandwidth use is on the upload side (sharing data with other peers)! Larger blocks will obviously have a direct impact on the amount of data shared.

Do you run a node or are you just guessing?

should bitcoins traffic limits be based on what 10% of typical home connection can handle?

maybe 20% ? maybe 50%? surly anything demanding 20-10% isn't going to impact number of full nodes.

in anycase i feel that there can be much improvement as to how data is shared across the network to dramatically decrease bandwidth use for full nodes, which should allow for proportionally bigger blocks.

I know someone that turns on his full node like once a week, just to download the lastest blocks and then turns it off again, so that when he makes a TX it doesn't take him long to sync up first. is this node useful? should ALL users be asked to run a full node?

[Chris_Sabian]

Well I have an average connection for Europe and i could easily support two gigabyte blocks from home, eight megabyte blocks would not be a problem at all. This person in Florida needs to either get a new internet provider or update his client by the sounds of it. lol

Did you read my posts in this thread? I've had to drastically reduce the connectivity of my full node (latest Core release) running on it's own dedicated hardware (modern quad-core CPU, 16GB RAM, SSD) in order to keep the home network functional for other daily use demands.

My node will happily eat as much upload speed as I give it and I have top 10% home internet speeds (probably better). It can bring simple web surfing to a standstill if I let it.

Nodes don't just accept blocks. Most of my bandwidth use is on the upload side (sharing data with other peers)! Larger blocks will obviously have a direct impact on the amount of data shared.

Do you run a node or are you just guessing?

should bitcoins traffic limits be based on what 10% of typical home connection can handle?

maybe 20% ? maybe 50%? surly anything demanding 20-10% isn't going to impact number of full nodes.

in anycase i feel that there can be much improvement as to how data is shared across the network to dramatically decrease bandwidth use for full nodes, which should allow for proportionally bigger blocks.

I know someone that turns on his full node like once a week, just to download the lastest blocks and then turns it off again, so that when he makes a TX it doesn't take him long to sync up first. is this node useful? should ALL users be asked to run a full node?

Why would a user who only wants to send 1 transaction a week want to run a full node?  That is useless.  That user is better off using a different type of wallet.