Please do not change MAX_BLOCK_SIZE

[gglon]

NOTHING in the Bitcoin protocol design that would not allow microtransactions.

default fee, MAX_BLOCK_SIZE. But it is not designed to be 1MB forever. Still I don't see any reason to make microtx as secure as macrotx. It is not worth to store them in the blockchain.

[1714995854]

1714995854

[1714995854]

1714995854

[1714995854]

1714995854

[ShadowOfHarbringer]

NOTHING in the Bitcoin protocol design that would not allow microtransactions.

default fee, MAX_BLOCK_SIZE. But it is not designed to be 1MB forever. Still I don't see any reason to make microtx as secure as macrotx. It is not worth to store them in the blockchain.

These are just variables. Variables can be changed.

But the CORE Bitcoin protocol allows ANY number of transactions per second. The only REAL limitation is the speed of the internet connection and TFLOPS of processing power.

So why the hell people keep shouting "Bitcoin is not designed for microtransactions" ? This is just a big piece of Über-Bullshit.

[gglon]

These are just variables. Variables can be changed.

So do you claim that block reward can also be changed? Is it also just a variable?

The only REAL limitation is the speed of the internet connection and TFLOPS of processing power.

And the speed of anonymous internet connection, in case someone want to make bitcoin fully anonymous. And the cost of it.

So why the hell people keep shouting "Bitcoin is not designed for microtransactions" ?

Because it's nonsense to store sub dollar tx in thousands of full nodes around the globe and propagate between them. The cost of bandwidth and storage is simply to large to make it economically feasible.  

[piotr_n]

I think everyone who is shouting today that we should just increase blocks size, or even allow micro transactions, should commit himself to run a full bitcoin node continuously, for the next 10 years, paying all the costs of it by himself.

Maybe then he would have understood

[oakpacific]

You can keep only the UTXO set rather than the full blockchain.

Also, I may turn off my miner for profitability reasons, but it doesn't imply that I would not turn it back on at my own loss just to protect my freedom, if it is in real danger.

[piotr_n]

You can keep only the UTXO set rather than the full blockchain.

Also, I may turn off my miner for profitability reasons, but it doesn't imply that I would not turn it back on at my own loss just to protect my freedom, if it is in real danger.

Yes, but it is not the storage that we are concerned of.

It's the bandwidth and the computing power - keeping only the UTXO does not change much here.

[ShadowOfHarbringer]

These are just variables. Variables can be changed.

So do you claim that block reward can also be changed? Is it also just a variable.

There is a difference.
Change of block reward would create a HARD FORK of Bitcoin. It is the most "sacred" variable of Bitcoin, it cannot be changed without hard forking and disagreement in the community.
Changing block size OR default fee will not create a hard fork.

The only REAL limitation is the speed of the internet connection and TFLOPS of processing power.

And the speed of anonymous internet connection, in case someone want to make bitcoin fully anonymous. And the cost of it.

And what is stopping you from using a LITE client over an anonymous connection ? Why the hell do you need a FULL client over TOR for ?
Also, there is a network which can handle such traffic - I2P.

So why the hell people keep shouting "Bitcoin is not designed for microtransactions" ?

Because it's nonsense to store sub dollar tx in thousands of full nodes around the globe and propagate between them. The cost of bandwidth and storage is simply to large to make it economically feasible. 

We have (or we will have) tree pruning for that. Not everything has to be stored.
And hard drives capacities & internet connections speeds will be improving over the years.

[ShadowOfHarbringer]

I think everyone who is shouting today that we should just increase blocks size, or even allow micro transactions, should commit himself to run a full bitcoin node continuously, for the next 10 years, paying all the costs of it by himself.

Yes, I actually plan to do that.
Few terabytes is not a problem and i think that we will have working tree pruning in the next 5 years.

[gglon]

Changing block size (...) will not create a hard fork.

. This whole discussion would be meaningless if it wouldn't.

And what is stopping you from using a LITE client over an anonymous connection ? Why the hell do you need a FULL client over TOR for ?
Also, there is a network which can handle such traffic - I2P.

For mining, and I2P is not ready yet.

[edmundedgar]

For mining, and I2P is not ready yet.

Out of interest what's your goal here? Do you just want to be able to mine anonymously, or do you want to be able to mine anonymously long-term at a profit?

[ShadowOfHarbringer]

. This whole discussion would be meaningless if it wouldn't.

Ok sorry - it actually will - my mistake.
I actually meant it does not change the "core principles of Bitcoin" like block reward.

And what is stopping you from using a LITE client over an anonymous connection ? Why the hell do you need a FULL client over TOR for ?
Also, there is a network which can handle such traffic - I2P.

For mining, and I2P is not ready yet.

Why exactly is it "not ready yet" ? Last time i checked, they even encouraged usage of P2P over I2P.

And in a maximum of few years time, mining over TOR will be impossible anyway. 6 transactions per second is simply NOT enough for any serious buisness, so the max block size will be increased anyway. The question is not if, but when and how big will it be.

[solex]

I think everyone who is shouting today that we should just increase blocks size, or even allow micro transactions, should commit himself to run a full bitcoin node continuously, for the next 10 years, paying all the costs of it by himself.

People who run a non-mining Bitcoin node are (usually) not out of pocket. Consider that many have a long-term Bitcoin holding, and how well that holding has done in the last year. Isn't it reasonable for owners of full nodes to spend a few bitcoins on upgrades and hardware? If the value of bitcoin continues like it has then anyone with a small holding will be able to afford vast amounts of disk space and bandwidth well before 10 years are up.

It's the bandwidth and the computing power - keeping only the UTXO does not change much here.

Bandwidth is really the only important limitation. That's why the block header change is also proposed. Also, computing power (average CPU speed) is already well above what is required.

[piotr_n]

I actually meant it does not change the "core principles of Bitcoin" like block reward.

But it does change the "core principles of Bitcoin" like decentralization of mining nodes.

[oakpacific]

You can keep only the UTXO set rather than the full blockchain.

Also, I may turn off my miner for profitability reasons, but it doesn't imply that I would not turn it back on at my own loss just to protect my freedom, if it is in real danger.

Yes, but it is not the storage that we are concerned of.

It's the bandwidth and the computing power - keeping only the UTXO does not change much here.

The USB miner can solve the computing power problem, if people really care a bit about their freedom, they will run the miners when they hardly cost them anything(it's only 2.5W atm), albeit generating negligible revenues, it's up to them.

Bandwidth....well, I suspect it will be dat big a problem, true not everyone will have access to enough bandwidth, but a significant percentage will be, the ISPs could cause some troubles though.

[gglon]

Last time i checked, they even encouraged usage of P2P over I2P.

Then it is worth checking.

[ShadowOfHarbringer]

It's the bandwidth and the computing power - keeping only the UTXO does not change much here.

Bandwidth ?  Like 150 Mbit down / 10Mbit up you can already get in most developed countries ?

Computing power ? Like Beowulf cluster you can build at home ? Like Core-I7 ? Dedicated FPGA's ? Extremely powerful Graphics cards ?

I don't see ANY PROBLEM AT ALL here.

Obviously, soon not everybody will be able to run a full node. It will be a job for geeks, academies, non-profit fundations and companies. And that is completely normal.

I, for one will obviously run a full node.

I actually meant it does not change the "core principles of Bitcoin" like block reward.

But it does change the "core principles of Bitcoin" like decentralization of mining nodes.

Mining is a job for geeks/nerds/hobbyists/companies/institutions and not for average John Smith. Sorry for that.

[piotr_n]

It's the bandwidth and the computing power - keeping only the UTXO does not change much here.

Bandwidth ?  Like 150 Mbit down / 10Mbit up you can already get in most developed countries ?

Computing power ? Like Beowulf cluster you can build at home ? Like Core-I7 ? Dedicated FPGA's ? Extremely powerful Graphics cards ?

I don't see ANY PROBLEM AT ALL here.

You don't - I do.
Lets just stop here, then.

Obviously, soon not everybody will be able to run a full node. It will be a job for geeks, academies, non-profit fundations and companies. And that is completely normal.

Yeah, you wish, non-profit my ass
You should have put governments and corporations at the top of this list.

No - it is not normal.
It would be a huge threat to the network, and thus to the currency itself.

[oakpacific]

It's the bandwidth and the computing power - keeping only the UTXO does not change much here.

Bandwidth ?  Like 150 Mbit down / 10Mbit up you can already get in most developed countries ?

Computing power ? Like Beowulf cluster you can build at home ? Like Core-I7 ? Dedicated FPGA's ? Extremely powerful Graphics cards ?

I don't see ANY PROBLEM AT ALL here.

You don't - I do.
Lets just stop here, then.

Obviously, soon not everybody will be able to run a full node. It will be a job for geeks, academies, non-profit fundations and companies. And that is completely normal.

You forgot to list governments and corporations.
No - it is not normal.
It would be a huge threat to the network, and thus to the currency itself.

People who really care about their freedom is always a minority, whenever, wherever.

We can't force them to care about it, we are already fortunate enough to have a chance to change something.

[ShadowOfHarbringer]

It's the bandwidth and the computing power - keeping only the UTXO does not change much here.

Bandwidth ?  Like 150 Mbit down / 10Mbit up you can already get in most developed countries ?

Computing power ? Like Beowulf cluster you can build at home ? Like Core-I7 ? Dedicated FPGA's ? Extremely powerful Graphics cards ?

I don't see ANY PROBLEM AT ALL here.

You don't - I do.
Lets just stop here, then.

Yes - let's just assume you have no arguments and that you are wrong.
And then we can stop.

Obviously, soon not everybody will be able to run a full node. It will be a job for geeks, academies, non-profit fundations and companies. And that is completely normal.

No - it is not normal.
It would be a huge threat to the network, and thus to the currency itself.

And what is the threat, exactly ?

Bitcoin full nodes are currently run full time mostly by hobbyists/geeks anyway. So what is the difference ?

[piotr_n]

Yes - let's just assume you have no arguments and that you are wrong.
And then we can stop.

No, my friend, I'm not going to admit that I am wrong, since I'm right, but feel free to keep talking to yourself, if that makes you feel superior