Reversion to the mean

[brg444]

That was a rhetorical question.

The point is that every miners pick their limit and obviously each of them have different resources therefore it follows that they will never agree on some magical soft limit every one of them will enforce.

That's just straight up delusional.

Of course miners have different resources and letting them compete for these resources is only good for the network to improve.

Why would miners need to agree on the soft limit? They don't have to. Those with the best resources will produce the bigger blocks. That's all.

Precisely.

You do know what you are describing is centralization and these bigger blocks will eventually make it impossible for me or you to run full nodes.

What I am describing is levelling up the game. Making it impossible more difficult for you and me to run a node might result in a loss of a couple of irrelevant nodes but it does not mean bitcoin will become centralized. Good enough decentralization is good enough and the market will keep it that way. If the node count drops down to a dangerous point, the market will react accordingly to resolve this situation.

You are so dumb.

There is no such thing as "good enough decentralization".

If I can't run a node because it costs several thousand dollars and 1GB/s bandwidth then Bitcoin is effectively worthless to me.

The only way to use Bitcoin in a truly trustless and private manner is by running a node.

Bitcoin is about monetary sovereignty, not depending on corporations, banking parasites and everyone else that can afford datacenters to maintain the network.

A PEER-TO-PEER NETWORK.

[dothebeats]

What I am describing is levelling up the game. Making it impossible more difficult for you and me to run a node might result in a loss of a couple of irrelevant nodes but it does not mean bitcoin will become centralized. Good enough decentralization is good enough and the market will keep it that way. If the node count drops down to a dangerous point, the market will react accordingly to resolve this situation.

Small nodes in a peer-to-peer network aren't irrelevant in any way. They help on validating blocks and tx, so they play a major role in the whole network.

[knight22]

What I am describing is levelling up the game. Making it impossible more difficult for you and me to run a node might result in a loss of a couple of irrelevant nodes but it does not mean bitcoin will become centralized. Good enough decentralization is good enough and the market will keep it that way. If the node count drops down to a dangerous point, the market will react accordingly to resolve this situation.

Small nodes in a peer-to-peer network aren't irrelevant in any way. They help on validating blocks and tx, so they play a major role in the whole network.

If they can't level up, they are irrelevant.

[knight22]

That was a rhetorical question.

The point is that every miners pick their limit and obviously each of them have different resources therefore it follows that they will never agree on some magical soft limit every one of them will enforce.

That's just straight up delusional.

Of course miners have different resources and letting them compete for these resources is only good for the network to improve.

Why would miners need to agree on the soft limit? They don't have to. Those with the best resources will produce the bigger blocks. That's all.

Precisely.

You do know what you are describing is centralization and these bigger blocks will eventually make it impossible for me or you to run full nodes.

What I am describing is levelling up the game. Making it impossible more difficult for you and me to run a node might result in a loss of a couple of irrelevant nodes but it does not mean bitcoin will become centralized. Good enough decentralization is good enough and the market will keep it that way. If the node count drops down to a dangerous point, the market will react accordingly to resolve this situation.

You are so dumb.

There is no such thing as "good enough decentralization".

There is such a thing. Either you are decentralized or you are not, there is no in between. Making it difficult to run a node =! centralized. Running nodes being out of reach from YOU =! centralized.

[sgbett]

That was a rhetorical question.

The point is that every miners pick their limit and obviously each of them have different resources therefore it follows that they will never agree on some magical soft limit every one of them will enforce.

That's just straight up delusional.

Of course miners have different resources and letting them compete for these resources is only good for the network to improve.

Why would miners need to agree on the soft limit? They don't have to. Those with the best resources will produce the bigger blocks. That's all.

Precisely.

You do know what you are describing is centralization and these bigger blocks will eventually make it impossible for me or you to run full nodes.

What I am describing is levelling up the game. Making it impossible more difficult for you and me to run a node might result in a loss of a couple of irrelevant nodes but it does not mean bitcoin has become centralized. Good enough decentralization is good enough and the market will keep it that way. If the node count drops down to a dangerous point, the market will react accordingly to resolve this situation.

I'd agree. I don't need brg444 to run a node. I can run my own. If brg444 needs brg444 to run a node, then brg444 needs to pony up and get it run.

This is not a "leap of faith", this is downright naive.

I'm sorry but what you posit is straight up nonsense. The miners are not a group, there is no such thing as "their own best economic interest". It is a competitive environment and they seek profit first and foremost. Miners with the most resources will set a limit beyond what the smallest players are capable of handling to eventually drive them out of the market.

You are right that they have talked amongst themselves before, it was to organize this SPV mining scheme that succeeded in causing a fork of the network. Are you really suggesting we trust these guys to do what's best "for the greater good"!?

Miners the group is made up of many individual miners. An individual miner is on balance likely to do what is best for itself. It is not naive to rely on an individual acting in their own best interests.

Miners that mine really big blocks to try and force out smaller players face the risk of a smaller player mining a smaller block faster and orphaning the big block. Thats a really simplified example. Reality is far more complicated. So much so that its very difficult to know for sure exactly what will happen - that to me is the leap of faith. Before Peter R went bonkers with his GIF he did put together a paper which, albeit not perfect, was a good model. Yes, spherical cow etc thing is its the closes to a model we have seen, and it intuitively makes sense because it is analogous to well understood economic theory on supply and demand.

What are the chances that the economics around blockchain resources broadly confirm to the simple principals of supply and demand and price discovery?

What are the chances that some entirely novel and as yet previously unseen economic model independently arises that entirely screws up the whole of bitcoin?

I dunno based on balance of probability though I'd say A: That the market can figure all this shit out and that we don't need to try and impose artificial constraints.

[sgbett]

That was a rhetorical question.

The point is that every miners pick their limit and obviously each of them have different resources therefore it follows that they will never agree on some magical soft limit every one of them will enforce.

That's just straight up delusional.

Of course miners have different resources and letting them compete for these resources is only good for the network to improve.

Why would miners need to agree on the soft limit? They don't have to. Those with the best resources will produce the bigger blocks. That's all.

Precisely.

You do know what you are describing is centralization and these bigger blocks will eventually make it impossible for me or you to run full nodes.

What I am describing is levelling up the game. Making it impossible more difficult for you and me to run a node might result in a loss of a couple of irrelevant nodes but it does not mean bitcoin will become centralized. Good enough decentralization is good enough and the market will keep it that way. If the node count drops down to a dangerous point, the market will react accordingly to resolve this situation.

You are so dumb.

There is no such thing as "good enough decentralization".

If I can't run a node because it costs several thousand dollars and 1GB/s bandwidth then Bitcoin is effectively worthless to me.

The only way to use Bitcoin in a truly trustless and private manner is by running a node.

Bitcoin is about monetary sovereignty, not depending on corporations, banking parasites and everyone else that can afford datacenters to maintain the network.

A PEER-TO-PEER NETWORK.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_good_enough

You are presenting a false dichotomy. If running a full node costs several thousand dollars and 1GB/s bandwidth the Bitcoin is worth a whole lot to a whole lot of other people. It being worthless to you is your call, not an absolute.

You don't need to run a full node, you might want to. I want bitcoin to totally replace cash. We both have our dreams

[brg444]

That was a rhetorical question.

The point is that every miners pick their limit and obviously each of them have different resources therefore it follows that they will never agree on some magical soft limit every one of them will enforce.

That's just straight up delusional.

Of course miners have different resources and letting them compete for these resources is only good for the network to improve.

Why would miners need to agree on the soft limit? They don't have to. Those with the best resources will produce the bigger blocks. That's all.

Precisely.

You do know what you are describing is centralization and these bigger blocks will eventually make it impossible for me or you to run full nodes.

What I am describing is levelling up the game. Making it impossible more difficult for you and me to run a node might result in a loss of a couple of irrelevant nodes but it does not mean bitcoin will become centralized. Good enough decentralization is good enough and the market will keep it that way. If the node count drops down to a dangerous point, the market will react accordingly to resolve this situation.

You are so dumb.

There is no such thing as "good enough decentralization".

If I can't run a node because it costs several thousand dollars and 1GB/s bandwidth then Bitcoin is effectively worthless to me.

The only way to use Bitcoin in a truly trustless and private manner is by running a node.

Bitcoin is about monetary sovereignty, not depending on corporations, banking parasites and everyone else that can afford datacenters to maintain the network.

A PEER-TO-PEER NETWORK.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_good_enough

You are presenting a false dichotomy. If running a full node costs several thousand dollars and 1GB/s bandwidth the Bitcoin is worth a whole lot to a whole lot of other people. It being worthless to you is your call, not an absolute.

You don't need to run a full node, you might want to. I want bitcoin to totally replace cash. We both have our dreams

We could've saved a lot of time if you had told me up front you're with the gang that proposes nodes will eventually be run in datacenters.

[knight22]

That was a rhetorical question.

The point is that every miners pick their limit and obviously each of them have different resources therefore it follows that they will never agree on some magical soft limit every one of them will enforce.

That's just straight up delusional.

Of course miners have different resources and letting them compete for these resources is only good for the network to improve.

Why would miners need to agree on the soft limit? They don't have to. Those with the best resources will produce the bigger blocks. That's all.

Precisely.

You do know what you are describing is centralization and these bigger blocks will eventually make it impossible for me or you to run full nodes.

What I am describing is levelling up the game. Making it impossible more difficult for you and me to run a node might result in a loss of a couple of irrelevant nodes but it does not mean bitcoin will become centralized. Good enough decentralization is good enough and the market will keep it that way. If the node count drops down to a dangerous point, the market will react accordingly to resolve this situation.

You are so dumb.

There is no such thing as "good enough decentralization".

If I can't run a node because it costs several thousand dollars and 1GB/s bandwidth then Bitcoin is effectively worthless to me.

The only way to use Bitcoin in a truly trustless and private manner is by running a node.

Bitcoin is about monetary sovereignty, not depending on corporations, banking parasites and everyone else that can afford datacenters to maintain the network.

A PEER-TO-PEER NETWORK.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_good_enough

You are presenting a false dichotomy. If running a full node costs several thousand dollars and 1GB/s bandwidth the Bitcoin is worth a whole lot to a whole lot of other people. It being worthless to you is your call, not an absolute.

You don't need to run a full node, you might want to. I want bitcoin to totally replace cash. We both have our dreams

We could've saved a lot of time if you had told me up front you're with the gang that proposes nodes will eventually be run in decentralized datacenters.

FTFY

For anything else, there is an altcoin.

[brg444]

That was a rhetorical question.

The point is that every miners pick their limit and obviously each of them have different resources therefore it follows that they will never agree on some magical soft limit every one of them will enforce.

That's just straight up delusional.

Of course miners have different resources and letting them compete for these resources is only good for the network to improve.

Why would miners need to agree on the soft limit? They don't have to. Those with the best resources will produce the bigger blocks. That's all.

Precisely.

You do know what you are describing is centralization and these bigger blocks will eventually make it impossible for me or you to run full nodes.

What I am describing is levelling up the game. Making it impossible more difficult for you and me to run a node might result in a loss of a couple of irrelevant nodes but it does not mean bitcoin will become centralized. Good enough decentralization is good enough and the market will keep it that way. If the node count drops down to a dangerous point, the market will react accordingly to resolve this situation.

You are so dumb.

There is no such thing as "good enough decentralization".

If I can't run a node because it costs several thousand dollars and 1GB/s bandwidth then Bitcoin is effectively worthless to me.

The only way to use Bitcoin in a truly trustless and private manner is by running a node.

Bitcoin is about monetary sovereignty, not depending on corporations, banking parasites and everyone else that can afford datacenters to maintain the network.

A PEER-TO-PEER NETWORK.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_good_enough

You are presenting a false dichotomy. If running a full node costs several thousand dollars and 1GB/s bandwidth the Bitcoin is worth a whole lot to a whole lot of other people. It being worthless to you is your call, not an absolute.

You don't need to run a full node, you might want to. I want bitcoin to totally replace cash. We both have our dreams

We could've saved a lot of time if you had told me up front you're with the gang that proposes nodes will eventually be run in decentralized datacenters.

FTFY

For anything else, there is an altcoin.

Decentralized datacenters

[knight22]

That was a rhetorical question.

The point is that every miners pick their limit and obviously each of them have different resources therefore it follows that they will never agree on some magical soft limit every one of them will enforce.

That's just straight up delusional.

Of course miners have different resources and letting them compete for these resources is only good for the network to improve.

Why would miners need to agree on the soft limit? They don't have to. Those with the best resources will produce the bigger blocks. That's all.

Precisely.

You do know what you are describing is centralization and these bigger blocks will eventually make it impossible for me or you to run full nodes.

What I am describing is levelling up the game. Making it impossible more difficult for you and me to run a node might result in a loss of a couple of irrelevant nodes but it does not mean bitcoin will become centralized. Good enough decentralization is good enough and the market will keep it that way. If the node count drops down to a dangerous point, the market will react accordingly to resolve this situation.

You are so dumb.

There is no such thing as "good enough decentralization".

If I can't run a node because it costs several thousand dollars and 1GB/s bandwidth then Bitcoin is effectively worthless to me.

The only way to use Bitcoin in a truly trustless and private manner is by running a node.

Bitcoin is about monetary sovereignty, not depending on corporations, banking parasites and everyone else that can afford datacenters to maintain the network.

A PEER-TO-PEER NETWORK.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_good_enough

You are presenting a false dichotomy. If running a full node costs several thousand dollars and 1GB/s bandwidth the Bitcoin is worth a whole lot to a whole lot of other people. It being worthless to you is your call, not an absolute.

You don't need to run a full node, you might want to. I want bitcoin to totally replace cash. We both have our dreams

We could've saved a lot of time if you had told me up front you're with the gang that proposes nodes will eventually be run in decentralized datacenters.

FTFY

For anything else, there is an altcoin.

Decentralized datacenters

Datacenters decentralized all over the world the same way the internet was created by the US military to decentralize their datacenters.

[Quantus]

This Thread is the best.
(I'm a 1BTC supporter, I'll stop using Bitcoin the day I can no longer run a full node client.)

[knight22]

This Thread is the best.
(I'm a 1BTC supporter, I'll stop using Bitcoin the day I can no longer run a full node client.)

If bitcoin reaches that point it means the numbers of market participant outpace the number of people quitting because they can't run a node, which will be negligible.

[brg444]

This Thread is the best.
(I'm a 1BTC supporter, I'll stop using Bitcoin the day I can no longer run a full node client.)

If bitcoin reaches that point it means the numbers of market participant outpace the number of people quitting because they can't run a node, which will be negligible.

"Let's sacrifice monetary sovereignty for more adoption"

[jonald_fyookball]

Op,

why u still arguing with the fagnamic duo ?

[knight22]

This Thread is the best.
(I'm a 1BTC supporter, I'll stop using Bitcoin the day I can no longer run a full node client.)

If bitcoin reaches that point it means the numbers of market participant outpace the number of people quitting because they can't run a node, which will be negligible.

"Let's sacrifice monetary sovereignty for more adoption"

Sacrificing you being able to run a node would not be a big loss TBH. Other than that monetary sovereignty still remains.

[brg444]

This Thread is the best.
(I'm a 1BTC supporter, I'll stop using Bitcoin the day I can no longer run a full node client.)

If bitcoin reaches that point it means the numbers of market participant outpace the number of people quitting because they can't run a node, which will be negligible.

"Let's sacrifice monetary sovereignty for more adoption"

Sacrificing you being able to run a node would not be a big loss TBH. Other than that monetary sovereignty still remains.

Not a big loss, smh

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

To learn anything, you can either [1] check for yourself, or [2] trust the judgment of someone else. Trusting someone else implies a loss of local-ness. It definitely implies that P2P is lost: you are a subordinate taking the information from an authority. To preserve P2P, you’ll have to check everything yourself: run a full node.

The requirement to run an entire full node may seem like a high bar, but the height is appropriate. With money, other people’s actions (counterfeiting) affect you. The only way for you to know you’ve been paid, is to make sure that every piece of data has followed every rule, and you can’t do that unless you have all of the data, and all of the rules, in front of you. That’s a full node.

It is also reasonable to require that this node start from scratch, for the very same reasons: to learn something, you either validate it yourself or trust an authority. Authorities are not “peers”.

[johnyj]

What level of fee people are comfortable with?

As far as I know, currently no one complains about the fee since they are almost neglectable if you are transacting anything more than 0.1 bitcoin

I tell you a real world example: A professor from china just visited me, and I told her to send me bitcoin for all her expenses so that I will give her euro to spend during her trip in Europe, and that will save her lots of time and fee from international bank transfer/exchange. But she complains a lot while she is opening an account in chinese bitcoin exchange. She doesn't want to save a couple of day's time and a couple of percent fee just because large bank makes her feel more comfortable

So you can see, even a wise professor would still not care about those fee of 3 percents when she is doing international transactions, how come the average people complain about the fee of bitcoin which is almost non-existent?

I think the pain point of fee for average people is around 5%, but the lower the education level, the higher it is. Many people trust western union to send money to their home country with ridiculously high 10+% fee, and they are still fine with it

So the fee still have magnitudes of room to rise without causing problem for adoption. And if some people think fee is too high, they would just combine several transactions and reduce the transaction frequency. So when the block is full, if everyone cut down their frequency by half, the block will immediately become half empty again. So a full block will not cause any problem for users, but will first cause problem for nodes if they have any infrastructure weakness

[pepto]

I love reading stuff when I don't have a clue about what I'm reading.
Are you guys seriously concerned about this or are you just bantering because you're getting paid to do so? You all do it well, whatever it is you're doing, and I really do enjoy reading things I don't understand. So Tally- ho, or whatever I mean. Maybe you've got some ideas that would support the price of a bitcoin.

[knight22]

This Thread is the best.
(I'm a 1BTC supporter, I'll stop using Bitcoin the day I can no longer run a full node client.)

If bitcoin reaches that point it means the numbers of market participant outpace the number of people quitting because they can't run a node, which will be negligible.

"Let's sacrifice monetary sovereignty for more adoption"

Sacrificing you being able to run a node would not be a big loss TBH. Other than that monetary sovereignty still remains.

Not a big loss, smh

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

To learn anything, you can either [1] check for yourself, or [2] trust the judgment of someone else. Trusting someone else implies a loss of local-ness. It definitely implies that P2P is lost: you are a subordinate taking the information from an authority. To preserve P2P, you’ll have to check everything yourself: run a full node.

The requirement to run an entire full node may seem like a high bar, but the height is appropriate. With money, other people’s actions (counterfeiting) affect you. The only way for you to know you’ve been paid, is to make sure that every piece of data has followed every rule, and you can’t do that unless you have all of the data, and all of the rules, in front of you. That’s a full node.

It is also reasonable to require that this node start from scratch, for the very same reasons: to learn something, you either validate it yourself or trust an authority. Authorities are not “peers”.

Your quotes are irrelevant because bitcoin will still be P2P and decentralized.

[sgbett]

We could've saved a lot of time if you had told me up front you're with the gang that proposes nodes will eventually be run in datacenters.

That is the default position...

The current system where every user is a network node is not the intended configuration for large scale.  That would be like every Usenet user runs their own NNTP server.  The design supports letting users just be users.  The more burden it is to run a node, the fewer nodes there will be.  Those few nodes will be big server farms.  The rest will be client nodes that only do transactions and don't generate.