Deleted

[spartacusrex]

If you only put the hash of the txns in block a 1MB block could have (roughly) 1,000,000 / 32 = 31250 txns (hashes) in a block. You wouldn't even need to make the blocks bigger. 1MB would be loads. The txns sent out earlier will already be stored at all the nodes, and the delay propagating them doesn't matter anywhere near as much. You only need to have them all together once every 10 mins. (you may lose the last few txns every 10 mins, but most would be there just fine)

I understand that you can run a full node pruned soon.. BUT only after you have downloaded from a non-pruned node. We need it to run without needing non-pruned nodes.

[onemorexmr]

If you only put the hash of the txns in block a 1MB block could have (roughly) 1,000,000 / 32 = 31250 txns (hashes) in a block. You wouldn't even need to make the blocks bigger. 1MB would be loads. The txns sent out earlier will already be stored at all the nodes, and the delay propagating them doesn't matter anywhere near as much. You only need to have them all together once every 10 mins. (you may lose the last few txns every 10 mins, but most would be there just fine)

I understand that you can run a full node pruned soon.. BUT only after you have downloaded from a non-pruned node. We need it to run without needing non-pruned nodes.

you would still need all transactions to verify balances so i dont see a benefit in only storing hashes in a block.
how are old transactions distributed?

edit: utxo is enough to verify balances but you dont see how those balances where built.

[spartacusrex]

If you only put the hash of the txns in block a 1MB block could have (roughly) 1,000,000 / 32 = 31250 txns (hashes) in a block. You wouldn't even need to make the blocks bigger. 1MB would be loads. The txns sent out earlier will already be stored at all the nodes, and the delay propagating them doesn't matter anywhere near as much. You only need to have them all together once every 10 mins. (you may lose the last few txns every 10 mins, but most would be there just fine)

I understand that you can run a full node pruned soon.. BUT only after you have downloaded from a non-pruned node. We need it to run without needing non-pruned nodes.

you would still need all transactions to verify balances so i dont see a benefit in only storing hashes in a block.
how are old transactions distributed?

edit: utxo is enough to verify balances but you dont see how those balances where built.

For me, only the balances matter..

[onemorexmr]

If you only put the hash of the txns in block a 1MB block could have (roughly) 1,000,000 / 32 = 31250 txns (hashes) in a block. You wouldn't even need to make the blocks bigger. 1MB would be loads. The txns sent out earlier will already be stored at all the nodes, and the delay propagating them doesn't matter anywhere near as much. You only need to have them all together once every 10 mins. (you may lose the last few txns every 10 mins, but most would be there just fine)

I understand that you can run a full node pruned soon.. BUT only after you have downloaded from a non-pruned node. We need it to run without needing non-pruned nodes.

you would still need all transactions to verify balances so i dont see a benefit in only storing hashes in a block.
how are old transactions distributed?

edit: utxo is enough to verify balances but you dont see how those balances where built.

For me, only the balances matter..

it changes bitcoins security model and makes some usecases impossible. not sure if i like it or not. but i certainly dont think that its possible to make such huge change to bitcoin at this point.

[spartacusrex]

Actually, there's nothing to stop anyone keeping merkle-tree'ed txns that can be linked to the blocks, for proof reasons etc..

[saturn643]

The problem with using multiple altcoins is that each altcoin has a different price. Altcoins are still just as volatile as Bitcoin, so they do not work like sidechains. Sidechains are kind of like altcoins, but those sidechains don't have their own tokens per se, but rather use ones from altcoins and Bitcoin. Since the transactions on a side chain are tied to the main currency e.g. Bitcoin, then the volatility problem isn't there with respect to Bitcoin. But with altcoins, there is a problem with volatility since the prices of those altcoins tend to change dramatically.

[StevenS]

Well as it currently seems Camp 1 wants their coin to be an everyday currency and this doesn't really work with the 10 minute block time...

That's not true. There are already merchants that use Bitcoin as an "everyday currency" with processors such as BitPay. For transactions with a value of the price of a fine dinner for 10, or a typical purchase at a book store, it is only necessary to wait until the transaction is accepted by the network -- it doesn't need to be confirmed in a block, as long as it contains a reasonable transaction fee (and the processor will make this determination and front the risk of a double spend).