I don't see why big blocks are a problem, even 10 MB blocks right now aren't.

[Tigggger]

the problem is the initial block download/verification (first sync) and the propagation and verification of new blocks.

the synchronisation is not a problem. the actual headache is that cores UI is not set up to function until synchronisation is complete.
as thats the real headache people gripe and moan about in regards to syncing
EG
no user balance or being able to spend until node has downloaded certain blocks that contain the users UTXO.
this can be fixed by having the UI function in Lite mode where it grabs a UTXO set first. or even just requests UTXO from peers of the keys the user owns. and then synchronisation becomes a background issue that can be done as and whenever the user pleases.

thus making a node spendably functional from the first hour

I currently have 3 nodes running and when the code for Segwit2x is released that will go up to 4. I have always run a node since I started but at the moment I want to make sure I am ready in case anything bad happens and that I will have a fully synced node running each type so that I can safeguard my bitcoins, probably a bit paranoid but better safe than sorry.

So anyway I feel the pain of that initial download/verify/sync having done more times than I can remember, and have wondered why it HAS to be done that way.

'New' nodes may not have any transactions of their own to download, and they may only want to run a pruned node, so surely it should be possible to do this in a backwards way similar to what you are suggesting, maybe with an option during install.

Do you have transactions to import ->
 Yes -> Start from 0 as it works now (or like in your suggestion)
 No ->
   Do you want store the full blockchain ->
     Yes -> Start from current block - x blocks (eg 2016 blocks), get the node up and running and usable then grab the previous blocks in the background (again like your suggestion)
     No -> Current block - x blocks (eg 2016) which then makes it a pruned node always holding just the previous x blocks.

This would surely help the number of nodes to grow ?

[1714894081]

1714894081

[1714894081]

1714894081

[The One]

I don't understand how people don't have a good or decent gaming computer if they are playing Steam games.

The data that I've posted is based off of Steam hardware in 2015.

So in reality, it would only cost a few hundred dollars to build a computer(buying a case/power supply/processor/ram/motherboard/HDD) that can handle current blocks and have enough power for larger blocks later.

Which is absolute nonsense. I have no idea why you are trying to push your, clearly uneducated, opinion on the matter? Do you really expect me to run a node, on the same machine that I'd play games on? Do you want the entry for nodes to be >$1000 worth of hardware? If you do, then you may as well start building Paypal 2.0.

Are you kidding? I run a full node on my Core I7-4790k 4.0ghz, use it daily for other things, including games, video editing/conversion and check my wallet data periodically and had no problems. So what is your issue?

Why not? People buy computers for other things, so running a node is free. No one buys a computer just to run a node and not browse the internet, etc. You do realised that everything that involves money had costs associated with it. Even printing money out of thin air has a small cost. Do you expect the bitcoin network to be secured for free? In my opinion, anyone who has over 50 bitcoins and bought below £1000 should run a node to protect their investment. That's is the nature of decentralisation, costs is no longer centralised; responsibility is no longer centralised. Protecting one's investment and securing the network doesn't make it Paypal 2.0.

[hv_]

the problem is the initial block download/verification (first sync) and the propagation and verification of new blocks.

the synchronisation is not a problem. the actual headache is that cores UI is not set up to function until synchronisation is complete.
as thats the real headache people gripe and moan about in regards to syncing
EG
no user balance or being able to spend until node has downloaded certain blocks that contain the users UTXO.
this can be fixed by having the UI function in Lite mode where it grabs a UTXO set first. or even just requests UTXO from peers of the keys the user owns. and then synchronisation becomes a background issue that can be done as and whenever the user pleases.

thus making a node spendably functional from the first hour

I currently have 3 nodes running and when the code for Segwit2x is released that will go up to 4. I have always run a node since I started but at the moment I want to make sure I am ready in case anything bad happens and that I will have a fully synced node running each type so that I can safeguard my bitcoins, probably a bit paranoid but better safe than sorry.

So anyway I feel the pain of that initial download/verify/sync having done more times than I can remember, and have wondered why it HAS to be done that way.

'New' nodes may not have any transactions of their own to download, and they may only want to run a pruned node, so surely it should be possible to do this in a backwards way similar to what you are suggesting, maybe with an option during install.

Do you have transactions to import ->
 Yes -> Start from 0 as it works now (or like in your suggestion)
 No ->
   Do you want store the full blockchain ->
     Yes -> Start from current block - x blocks (eg 2016 blocks), get the node up and running and usable then grab the previous blocks in the background (again like your suggestion)
     No -> Current block - x blocks (eg 2016) which then makes it a pruned node always holding just the previous x blocks.

This would surely help the number of nodes to grow ?

Looks pretty much bitcoins core is not really done to attract exponential growth at all. So how the hack this should scale at all ?

No industrial optimization allowed -> stay on small, nichy Rasp PIs


Or


Allow industrial competition, get rid of code bottlenecks -> Blocksize, Scaling  and decentralization is NO ISSUE for all !

It will not be needed that any average Tigger (sorry, dont feel blamed, rather feel thanked getting it up to that actual stage ) runs 4 nodes at all - buy you some bitcoin .

[iluvpie60]

I don't understand how people don't have a good or decent gaming computer if they are playing Steam games.

The data that I've posted is based off of Steam hardware in 2015.

So in reality, it would only cost a few hundred dollars to build a computer(buying a case/power supply/processor/ram/motherboard/HDD) that can handle current blocks and have enough power for larger blocks later.

Which is absolute nonsense. I have no idea why you are trying to push your, clearly uneducated, opinion on the matter? Do you really expect me to run a node, on the same machine that I'd play games on? Do you want the entry for nodes to be >$1000 worth of hardware? If you do, then you may as well start building Paypal 2.0.

Hello Lauda, I agree with what you are saying. I have stated I was asking a stupid question because I am uneducated on BTC currently as I have not kept up with it for years. I never claimed to know too much as I have stated multiple times in the thread. Yes, I am not fully versed in the technical side of everything as I had admited.

I don't expect anyone to do anything. All I am saying is a gaming rig can run the minimum current requirements and many times over.  If you have more than 16GB of ram and a decent internet connection and HDD space you can run a node while you game and it shouldn't affect your game.

My thought is that there are already tens of millions of people who have the hardware that can run nodes and it should be utlized, as I see the data that says only 5,000 nodes are running or so. Even if big blocks don't happen you should still run a node. I don't care if big blocks happen. I don't care about the politics of BTC.

[Meuh6879]

If there is only 5,000 nodes right now doesn't some blame belong on all of us for not promoting node usage more?

Just to be more clear : you can see 5000 listening nodes.

[d5000]

the problem is the initial block download/verification (first sync) and the propagation and verification of new blocks.

the synchronisation is not a problem.

Yes, NOW it's not a problem. But with blocks 10 times bigger and a blockchain 10 times heavier it will be. And really ... real big blockers don't conform with 10 MB blocks, they want 32MB or even 1 GB to handle billions of users on-chain. That's complete madness. Let sidechains do that for us

the actual headache is that cores UI is not set up to function until synchronisation is complete.

That's a minor problem. While a "Lite" mode could be desirable (some altcoins already have something like that) you always can use a SPV wallet for your urgent buys/transactions.

[Meuh6879]

SPV need completes nodes.  

I wait a random pruning tool to see evolving the Bitcoin Local Blockchain (or a SegWit obtimisation during the creation of a localc blockchain).

Actual Pruning system is not a solution.

[BillyBobZorton]

Here's my theory FWIW:

1. Core devs have connections with the exchanges.
2. Exchanges have connections with the banks.
3. Banks tell the exchanges "off-chain scaling or we cut you off".

1. Governments can't control the bitcoin protocol or the network
2. Governments need huge blocksizes to centralize nodes inside corporations which are easily located and therefore bribeable because a network of random people running nodes anonymously is unstoppable unless you cut the entire internet
3. Banks eventually become the custodians of the nodes and along with mining corporations they get bribed and controlled to make bitcoin their bitch

[The One]

Here's my theory FWIW:

1. Core devs have connections with the exchanges.
2. Exchanges have connections with the banks.
3. Banks tell the exchanges "off-chain scaling or we cut you off".

A sound theory, unfortunately one needs more evidences.

3. If the banks were to cut anyone off, simply use cash and make the exchange in public, preferably next to the bank, then one can withdraw cash safety and another deposit cash safety.

[jbreher]

Which is absolute nonsense. I have no idea why you are trying to push your, clearly uneducated, opinion on the matter? Do you really expect me to run a node, on the same machine that I'd play games on? Do you want the entry for nodes to be >$1000 worth of hardware? If you do, then you may as well start building Paypal 2.0.

Which is absolute nonsense. The machine I run a fully-validating, non-mining wallet upon, cost me $300. Several years ago.

And that's not the real issue. The real issue is that - if you're not willing to part with less than a half-bitcoin in order to run a fully-validating, non-mining wallet, your so-called 'contribution' to Bitcoin network security is a net negative. Fuck right off.

[Lauda]

Are you kidding? I run a full node on my Core I7-4790k 4.0ghz, use it daily for other things, including games, video editing/conversion and check my wallet data periodically and had no problems. So what is your issue?

Periodically? Are you sure you are not running a non-listening node? Mine eats up over 1 TB of bandwidth per month very easily and I can't possibly imagine running the node on the same system that I use for work (not even with the current block size).

I don't expect anyone to do anything. All I am saying is a gaming rig can run the minimum current requirements and many times over.  If you have more than 16GB of ram and a decent internet connection and HDD space you can run a node while you game and it shouldn't affect your game.

Read the study and the data from the Bitfury group. Their data makes your claim void.

Which is absolute nonsense. I have no idea why you are trying to push your, clearly uneducated, opinion on the matter? Do you really expect me to run a node, on the same machine that I'd play games on? Do you want the entry for nodes to be >$1000 worth of hardware? If you do, then you may as well start building Paypal 2.0.

Which is absolute nonsense. The machine I run a fully-validating, non-mining wallet upon, cost me $300. Several years ago.

It is certainly not. Why are you spamming and quoting out of context? The data as provided by the study from Bitfury confirms my claim.

And that's not the real issue. The real issue is that - if you're not willing to part with less than a half-bitcoin in order to run a fully-validating, non-mining wallet, your so-called 'contribution' to Bitcoin network security is a net negative. Fuck right off.

Who are you, to force me to pay half a Bitcoin, to achieve financial sovereignty? Leave this forum and Bitcoin, cancerous idiot. You are the exact type of people which should be called out on every occasion (and who unfortunately can't be removed from this system).
It is of utmost importance to keep the cost of running nodes as low as possible. However, this does not mean that we should force a system which must work on a raspberry fee (which is often what another type of cancerous idiots tend to exaggerate with).

[franky1]

the problem is the initial block download/verification (first sync) and the propagation and verification of new blocks.

the synchronisation is not a problem.

Yes, NOW it's not a problem. But with blocks 10 times bigger and a blockchain 10 times heavier it will be. And really ... real big blockers don't conform with 10 MB blocks, they want 32MB or even 1 GB to handle billions of users on-chain. That's complete madness. Let sidechains do that for us

lets first address the sidechains (i facepalm)
sidechain is an altcoin.. go play with litecoin or zcash or ethereum if you want that..
go support and protect a differnt chain/network...
honestly if another chain can handle 10mb then bitcoin can too.
simple reason: altcoins use computers.. altcoins use the internet so whatever an altcoin can handle bitcoin can too..

lets address the other part of ur comment
stop sniffing the reddit scripts of "gigabytes by midnight"

i continually laugh at the dooms dayers that know 32mb is manageable and any number below that is more then manageable
yep even 8mb is "RaspberryPi +ADSL (0.5mb upload /s)" safe.. so now the doomsdays try shouting
stay at 1mb or else gigabytes per block because they cant argue about 2-32 so have to exaggerate to 'gb by midnight' to scare people

this is not nor ever has been gigabytes by midnight proposal nor has there ever been a proposal for GB in hours days or months.
the main progress proposals onchain have been, natural growth over time that will eventually be xxmb IN DECADES
the stupid thing the "gigabytes by midnight" FUD scripters forget is that nodes choose what blocks are acceptable and so will not make such stupidly high leaps too soon. the nodes will challenge things going too fast. thus there is no problem. its self regulating because if the nodes cant handle it, they wont allow it. its the most fundamental part of bitcoins true consensus!!!


the reality is that TODAY 8mb is safe.. actually alot more than that is safe, but to calm down the doomsdayers it was suggested 16mb instead
of 32mb
then 8mb instead of 16.. then 4mb instead of 8mb then 2 instead of 4.. but then then the doomsdayers still cry they want 1mb

their explanations for 1mb are empty. no logic, no meaningful reason, apart from crying

every time i see a small blocker demand 1mb stays in effect all i read is
"no Call of duty/twitch live streaming due to ATI server rack data centres"
"no HDTV on demand due to server farms attached to household tvs"
in short they are stuck in the 90's

the actual headache is that cores UI is not set up to function until synchronisation is complete.

That's a minor problem. While a "Lite" mode could be desirable (some altcoins already have something like that) you always can use a SPV wallet for your urgent buys/transactions.

what im talking about is instead of core syncing and then prunning, no witnessing, stripping to become lite.
im talking abut core run in litemode. making the syncing part a background thing.

imagine it this way
imagine if microsoft instead of loading windows for people to use and then do updates in the background, microsoft decided that all windows updates needed to be done before letting people log into their computer.

people would hate waiting hours just to send an email or access a web page..
same goes for core and other nodes.

let people open the client and quickly get a utxo st of the keys they use to see a balance and be able to spend, and then the full sync just occurs in the background while people are using the node.

its not about turning off syncing. its about allowing users to use their node on the same day they download it..
because thats the part people are really peed off with.. not being able to do a thing for a couple weeks

[franky1]

It is of utmost importance to keep the cost of running nodes as low as possible.

says the guy that thinks someone paying 40 hours minimum wage labour for 1 tx is 'normal' and 'bitcoin is running fine',  'just pay appropriate fee'  and 'just pay more'

now to wake you up:
cost of using bitcoin (tx fee) is more of a curse than running a node cost

[hv_]

Any idea what kinda node this little Swiss private bank will gonna run?  Rasp PI

Bugger off mates. Times are changing and because of bitcoin is for BIG !!

https://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2017/07/12/business/12reuters-swiss-banks-falcon-bitcoin.html?mcubz=1

Guess how many business is the potential out there?

And it is happening in real. fasten your seatbelts!

Do you really beleive Laudi has any idea about that at all or is payd for telling the FUD?


Get play back with your little bs, brain, pi.

[Last of the V8s]

further resources for us to ignore
https://petertodd.org/2016/block-publication-incentives-for-miners
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/6mofdf/is_there_support_for_a_statusquo_digital/
https://medium.com/@rextar4444/why-bitcoin-shouldnt-be-scaled-how-bitcoin-will-become-a-commodity-money-that-inspires-our-9a6b048a4b0f
https://medium.com/@rextar4444/bitcoins-most-valuable-usecase-7f5c6e95be22

[pereira4]

Ok. I want to ask a stupid question here.

What is the problem with big blocks exactly. In terms of space on harddrives I don't see it. A 4 TB HDD is like 70 dollars on sale.

I did some quick math.

Assuming a block created every 10 minutes and is the max size(which is extremely unlikely but lets go with that) 1MB or 2MB or 3MB or 4 MB or 10 MB.

10 years from now here is how much more GB is added to the total size of the blockchain


1mb blocks - 525.6 GB
2mb blocks - 1,051.2GB
3mb blocks - 1,576.8GB
4mb blocks - 2,102.4GB
10mb blocks - 5,256GB

Even with 10 MB blocks starting now and goign to 10 years out there WILL NOT BE A STORAGE ISSUE for the average person. Not at all! The average person can afford to buy a 6 TB or a little higher HDD for like 150 bucks or something, and by the time we are 10 years out a 30 TB drive will be like 100 bucks or cheaper.

Cost of internet? On average most internet companies per month charge like 60 to 100 a month and you get between 250 GB to 1,000 GB a month downloaded before they charge you an extra 10 bucks for another 100 GB.

So even under the 10MB block size on a monthly basis you are only downloading on your node 40 GB per 4 week period.

How about speed of that internet? Of course it can handle it... 10MB = 80 mb(mega bits) and  in terms of speed, so to download 10MB on an average of every 10 minutes your internet speed needs to be at the minimum be able to handle 133 kbps, yes, kilobits per second, so convert to KiloBytes per second by dividing by 8 and you get 16.5 KBPS, DIAL UP IS 56 KBPS. Helllloooooooo!!!!!

If you have 80mbps download you can do 600  10MB blocks in 10 minutes.


I honestly have no idea why anyone thinks big blocks are a problem, maybe if we got to 100 MB blocks and it happened in a few years, but that means almost everyone in the world would be using BTC to make 100MBblocks full every 10 minutes every day every week every year...


So what is the issue? Please lay it out for me, I have been away for awhile.  Am I missing something? Maybe poorer people cant afford to host a node is the issue? But are they hosting it now anyways, probably not...

It is not a stupid question. Don't worry many of us have worked this out, similar to yours above and equally don't see the fuss.

There is an irrational fear that the number of full nodes will shrink due to the costs above and Bitcoin will be centralised.

I can download a 200mb mp4 file in 1 minute 30 seconds. 10mb in 20 second. (both averages) Internet is £30 per month and already paid for due to other uses. Running a full node does not add any extra cost at all.

Ok. I want to ask a stupid question here.

What is the problem with big blocks exactly. In terms of space on harddrives I don't see it. A 4 TB HDD is like 70 dollars on sale.

I did some quick math.

Assuming a block created every 10 minutes and is the max size, 1mb or 2mb or 3 mb or 4 mb.

10 years from now here is how much more GB is added to the total size of the blockchain


1mb blocks - 525.6 GB
2mb blocks - 1,051.2GB
3mb blocks - 1,576.8GB
4mb blocks - 2,102.4GB
10mb blocks - 5,256GB

Even with 10 mb blocks starting now and goign to 10 years out there WILL NOT BE A STORAGE ISSUE for the average person. Not at all! The average person can afford to buy a 6 TB or a little higher HDD for like 150 bucks or something, and by the time we are 10 years out a 30 TB drive will be like 100 bucks or cheaper.

Cost of internet? On average most internet companies per month charge like 60 to 100 a month and you get between 250 GB to 1,000 GB a month downloaded before they charge you an extra 10 bcks for another 100 GB.

So even under the 10MB block size on a monthly basis you are only downloading on your node 40 GB per 4 week period.

How about speed of that internet? Of course it can handle it... 10MB = 80 mbp and  in terms of speed, so to download 10MB on an average of every 10 minutes your internet speed needs to be at the minimum be able to handle 133 kbps, yes, kilobits per second, so convert to KiloBytes per second by dividing by 8 and you get 16.5 KBPS, DIAL UP IS 56 KBPS. Helllloooooooo!!!!!

If you have 80mbps download you can do 600  10MB blocks in 10 minutes.


I honestly have no idea why anyone thinks big blocks are a problem, maybe if we got to 100 MB blocks and it happened in a few years, but that won't happen!

It is not a stupid question. Don't worry many of us have worked this out, similar to yours above and equally don't see the fuss.

There is an irrational fear that the number of full nodes will shrink due to the costs above and Bitcoin will be centralised.

I can download a 200mb mp4 file in 1 minute 30 seconds. 10mb in 20 second. (both averages) Internet is £30 per month and already paid for due to other uses. Running a full node does not add any extra cost at all.

Nice copy-pasted answer. At least big blocktard sockpuppets should put some more effort into varying their answers.

Anyway, we don't need big blocks because the mempool is not full, except when it gets attacked by Roger Ver and other rich attackers:

The Bitmain-Ver PBOC sponsored attack on Bitcoin is increasingly obvious as the spam attacks become increasingly less organic and happening right in key moments where hardfork FUD is being spread.

Segwit2x will soon join XT, Classic, and Unlimited into the also ever increasing list of Failed Bitcoin Takeover attempts.

Sorry, no hard forks for you.

It's objectively stupid to risk a hardfork that only contains a 2MB increase when we don't need to. If we are hardforking you should look into other interesting technology and not the dumb blocksize increase only:

https://bitcoinhardforkresearch.github.io/

We also do NOT want to hardfork with unsafe code, developed in an unsafe amount of time, risking a 40 billion market in the process.

We do not need bigger blocks now, it's objectively a mistake:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=2941&v=iFJ2MZ3KciQ

Oh I agree hardforks cause chaos and are risky.

My point was more I dont see how segwit makes sense to do. Offchain stuff is more centralized and vunerable vs onchain.

I am aware of the above also, the graph and spam attacks.

Though censorship is not ideal, why not include in the code to disable sending of 1 satoshi transactions. Maybe in 20 years if there is a need to send a 1 sat transaction it can be solved a different way. Btc would need to be worth a lot for 1 sat transaction to be important in any way.

I think people will just use ETH for stuff like that.

I dont want segwit.

I think the fear of hardforks to increase blocksize correct. But only if the code is a secret. If the code is open to all for months i dont see why raising it would be a problem in the future.

Yes mempool isnt full any more I  am also aware of that. Just the things people said about blocksize being too big arent justified. Having a 20MB block right now still wont see it filled. And people could still run their nodes and what not.

Blocking 1 satoshi transactions could work, but they would just raise it to 2, then to 3... when does it become economically unviable to stop spam without having an impact on how bitcoin works?

When second layer solutions are working, we will be able to get microtransactions, so im not sure how that would work out.

In any case... hardforking now is a mistake, everyone knows this.

Segwit has been insanely tested and it's not a hardfork so its not the end of the world.

The priority now is to avoid BitmainCoin fork.

[Iranus]

Any idea what kinda node this little Swiss private bank will gonna run?  Rasp PI

Banks should not be the only people running nodes.

Do you really beleive Laudi has any idea about that at all or is payd for telling the FUD?

Quote from Lauda just three posts before yours:

It is of utmost importance to keep the cost of running nodes as low as possible. However, this does not mean that we should force a system which must work on a raspberry fee (which is often what another type of cancerous idiots tend to exaggerate with).

Please read the thread before posting.

"bitcoin should not grow because americans might need to pay 3 hours of minimum wage labour more PER MONTH to use it
but dont worry about tx fee, just pay more, it doesnt matter if cuba, india, africa have to pay 40 hours of labour PER TX!"

Transaction fees should be approximately 20 cents right now.  40 satoshi/byte or sometimes even less is good enough when the network isn't undergoing a spam attack.

In my view, there's a fine balance.  The first step should be offchain scaling or alterations of onchain transactions like SegWit - the second step should be onchain scaling, when there's no other clear options available.  The bigger the max block size, the more space that's open for long-term spamming and eventually node centralisation.

[hv_]

Any idea what kinda node this little Swiss private bank will gonna run?  Rasp PI

Banks should not be the only people running nodes.

Do you really beleive Laudi has any idea about that at all or is payd for telling the FUD?

Quote from Lauda just three posts before yours:

It is of utmost importance to keep the cost of running nodes as low as possible. However, this does not mean that we should force a system which must work on a raspberry fee (which is often what another type of cancerous idiots tend to exaggerate with).

Please read the thread before posting.

"bitcoin should not grow because americans might need to pay 3 hours of minimum wage labour more PER MONTH to use it
but dont worry about tx fee, just pay more, it doesnt matter if cuba, india, africa have to pay 40 hours of labour PER TX!"

Transaction fees should be approximately 20 cents right now.  40 satoshi/byte or sometimes even less is good enough when the network isn't undergoing a spam attack.

In my view, there's a fine balance.  The first step should be offchain scaling or alterations of onchain transactions like SegWit - the second step should be onchain scaling, when there's no other clear options available.  The bigger the max block size, the more space that's open for long-term spamming and eventually node centralisation.

Read before posting.

Where is written 'only banks' ?

Once you could point me to, pls explain why you want people do the txs rather off-chain than onchain? Since this will be the result of your order, correct?

And if you got that, than tell us, how far is that away, from moving people into alts directly?

Last, what do you think is more expensive, spamming 1MB blocks or 2MB blocks up to the limit?

[25hashcoin]

https://www.bitcoinabc.org

[The One]

Are you kidding? I run a full node on my Core I7-4790k 4.0ghz, use it daily for other things, including games, video editing/conversion and check my wallet data periodically and had no problems. So what is your issue?

Periodically? Are you sure you are not running a non-listening node? Mine eats up over 1 TB of bandwidth per month very easily and I can't possibly imagine running the node on the same system that I use for work (not even with the current block size).

I have no idea of my bandwidth (don't check at all) as i have optic fibre in UK and not some crappy telephone copper wire that other internet services provides. Mine has no cap at all, unlike other internet services. I download all my favourite TV programs as i don't have 18 to 20 minutes per hour to waste on watching adverts. My network traffic on my wallet shows the usual download of new blocks but sending out more, roughly 1gb daily. I have the usual 8 outbound and on average 5 inbound (tends to fluctuate as my wallet auto banned some inbound connections for some reason)

Based on my experience, i can not fathom why others are complaining.