bitcoin network can easily fall into control of central bankers.

[Morbid]

the other day i had a good chat with my computer techy friend who only knows basics of bitcoin realm. we got very speculative to understand a very possible outcome of bitcoin network.
as we all know the storage increase rates have somewhat slowed down with average pc getting a terabyte of hdd space. that rate will not increase much as we get futher into future. as  blockchain size is increasing rapidly with only handful of bitcoin users just imagine problems we will face when we are getting close to mass adoption.. we assumed that at some point a service will appear (most probably sponsored or controlled by central bankers) which will create ability to do instant payments off blockchain via personal user accounts. and say every hour or so update the blockchain with overall total transactions. that way the blockchain growth will be controlled at predicted rate. though, as these services become stronger they will obviously wish to squease as many private blockchain keepers off the  network. they can easily do that by increasing blockchain size to absolutely huge proportions which will be very expensive for small private holders to maintain. therefore we might eventually end up with very few who actually have enough resources to physically store it. we could see an arms race between blockchain keepers with the biggest one spamming its size with smaller/more frequent transactions to get smaller ones off the network. once the process is over the blockchain info might be restricted at which point the public wont be able to track the economy properly.
am i the only one seeing this? how can we prevent it? please discuss.

[Lethn]

Yes yes, I'm sure they could control Bitcoin, but what about the 200+ other coins that they don't have under their control? Anyone who makes arguments against Bitcoin coding often forgets the very important fact that it is open source. I myself have kept a backup of the Bitcoin source code on the computer for when I know C++ better to have a look at it and also for if the governments decide to arrest the developers etc. Shutting down Bitcoin is going to be a bit like our governments' efforts to take out Bittorrent, they may well get a few people and they may take down a couple of big sites or block them but in the end, it won't really do anything.

If it weren't open source I'd agree with many of the of the problems people have pointed out, but the thing is, it isn't, you can look at everything and if your guy thinks blockchains will be that much of a problem he could take the code and develop something himself, even keeping pretty anonymous in the process like other altcoin makers have done, we've even seen examples of inflationary currencies coming out because of Bitcoin being open source so people can finally see which currencies are going to work best when competing with each other.

[naphto]

Yes, bitcoin will be controlled by  a few people then. But I am not sure that it will be central banks. More likely greedy people

[Lethn]

I certainly think the 'Bitcoin foundation' ( I always have to use sarcastic quotes with them sorry ) is trying to take over Bitcoin for sure.

[solex]

the other day i had a good chat with my computer techy friend who only knows basics of bitcoin realm. we got very speculative to understand a very possible outcome of bitcoin network.
as we all know the storage increase rates have somewhat slowed down with average pc getting a terabyte of hdd space. that rate will not increase much as we get futher into future. as  blockchain size is increasing rapidly with only handful of bitcoin users just imagine problems we will face when we are getting close to mass adoption....

Data storage of the blockchain is not the limiting factor. There is enormous potential with just this glass technology alone:
"The storage allows unprecedented parameters including 360 TB/disc data capacity, thermal stability up to 1000°C and practically unlimited lifetime."
http://www.southampton.ac.uk/mediacentre/news/2013/jul/13_131.shtml

The limiting factor is ISP bandwidth for block propagation. bandwidth is also increasing fast, but if not fast enough then fees will steadily rise and the Bitcoin blockchain will be mostly for higher-value transactions. This is not ideal, but not a disaster either, and not a reason for a takeover by central bankers. The network hashrate is rocketing and would seem to be enough to protect the blockchain long-term if that continues.

I suspect that if low-value transactions are priced away from the blockchain then off-chain solutions will develop which handle the micro-payments with just end-of-day transfers done on-blockchain. However, if bandwidth keeps increasing, as it is to support HD video streaming and other services in many countries, then Bitcoin capacity will scale too.

[Alpaca Bob]

Yes. We need Litecoin (and/or other alts) to "keep bitcoin honest".

[Morbid]

I certainly think the 'Bitcoin foundation' ( I always have to use sarcastic quotes with them sorry ) is trying to take over Bitcoin for sure.

can suspicions be created by them working closely with most governmental agencies? its obvious what kind of pressure 'the foundation' will be exposed to from them folks..

Yes. We need Litecoin (and/or other alts) to "keep bitcoin honest".

i agree completely! in future bitcoin could be used as a main currency for the masses, while alts balancing the market out and create liquidity.

[LiteCoinGuy]

Yes. We need Litecoin ... to "keep bitcoin honest".

correct. there has to be pressure at bitcoin and a backup called Litecoin.

[Ekaros]

Why would central banks adopt bitcoin?

Why not just come up with alt coin and start using it with governments, big banks, etc.? Or multiple alt coins.

Replacing fiat with bitcoin is stupid for them, when they could as well replace it with their own currency... And as long as they have governments behind them, large part of population will follow.


Add:
Apart from ofc destroying it, how long would the system last with systematic attacks of majority of hashing power? Double spend is small worry if blocking transactions and generating bloat in chain is other option...

[FeedbackLoop]

Why would central banks adopt bitcoin?

Why not just come up with alt coin and start using it with governments, big banks, etc.? Or multiple alt coins.

If the altcoin shared the same properties as Bitcoin it would be suicide.

 

[DannyHamilton]

- snip -
blockchain size is increasing rapidly with only handful of bitcoin users just imagine problems we will face when we are getting close to mass adoption..
- snip -

There is currently a maximum valid block size of 1 Megabyte.  Since blocks are created on average every 10 minutes, this results in a maximum blockchain growth of 52 Gigabytes per year.  At that rate, it will take 20 years to fill a 1 terabyte drive.  I suspect that within 20 years, a 3 terabyte drive will be affordable for that average user.  If so, then it will take 60 years to fill that.  How much disk space do you think the average user is likely to have 60 years from now.  (Do you really think you can predict technology 60 years in advance with any accuracy at all?)

they can easily do that by increasing blockchain size to absolutely huge proportions

Not without the permission of every user, they can't.  All other nodes will simply refuse to relay any blocks that exceed the maximum allowable blocksize.  The larger blocks will be just as invalid as if they tried to spend bitcoins without providing a valid signature.  They'd never make it into the blockchain.

which will be very expensive for small private holders to maintain.

Which is why the small private holders (and most all nodes) would refuse to "upgrade" to a client that allowed such large blocks.

am i the only one seeing this?

No.  It's been discussed hundreds of times on this forum.  We don't really need to re-discuss all the same talking points all over again, do we?

how can we prevent it?

Refuse to upgrade to a client that sets an excessively large maximum block size.

please discuss.

Again?  No thanks.

[mogrith]

  I suspect that within 20 years, a 3 terabyte drive will be affordable for that average user.  If so, then it will take 60 years to fill that.  How much disk space do you think the average user is likely to have 60 years from now.  (Do you really think you can predict technology 60 years in advance with any accuracy at all?)

they can easily do that by increasing blockchain size to absolutely huge proportions

Not without the permission of every user, they can't.  All other nodes will simply refuse to relay any blocks that exceed the maximum allowable blocksize.  The larger blocks will be just as invalid as if they tried to spend bitcoins without providing a valid signature.  They'd never make it into the blockchain.

which will be very expensive for small private holders to maintain.

20 years how about now
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822148901

Seagate SV35 Series ST3000VX000 3TB 7200 RPM 64MB Cache SATA 6.0Gb/s 3.5" Internal Hard Drive Bare Drive
less than 1BTC

[msc]

Why not just come up with alt coin and start using it

One coin system is useful.  More than one is a cluster-f.  When I find something to buy using X-coins, I don't want to have to exchange my Y-coin balance first.  

[Alpaca Bob]

Why not just come up with alt coin and start using it

One coin system is useful.  More than one is a cluster-f.  When I find something to buy using X-coins, I don't want to have to exchange my Y-coin balance first.  

I'd assume that all merchants would accept the main coin (let's say bitcoin), since it will probably be the most stable and accepted. Some merchant would/could also accept other coin though. Kind of like how all merchants accept dollars right now, while some also accept bitcoin.

[DannyHamilton]

I suspect that within 20 years, a 3 terabyte drive will be affordable for that average user.  If so, then it will take 60 years to fill that.  How much disk space do you think the average user is likely to have 60 years from now.  (Do you really think you can predict technology 60 years in advance with any accuracy at all?)

they can easily do that by increasing blockchain size to absolutely huge proportions

Not without the permission of every user, they can't.  All other nodes will simply refuse to relay any blocks that exceed the maximum allowable blocksize.  The larger blocks will be just as invalid as if they tried to spend bitcoins without providing a valid signature.  They'd never make it into the blockchain.

which will be very expensive for small private holders to maintain.

20 years how about now
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822148901

Seagate SV35 Series ST3000VX000 3TB 7200 RPM 64MB Cache SATA 6.0Gb/s 3.5" Internal Hard Drive Bare Drive
less than 1BTC

Certainly.  I was just playing along with what the OP seemed to believe:

we all know the storage increase rates have somewhat slowed down with average pc getting a terabyte of hdd space. that rate will not increase much as we get futher into future.

[johnyj]

With more off-chain transactions by clearing houses to handling the small transactions, the block size will get less and less

[CurbsideProphet]

Why would central banks adopt bitcoin?

Why not just come up with alt coin and start using it with governments, big banks, etc.? Or multiple alt coins.

Exactly, a central bank isn't going to adopt a currency where they've already lost control of x-% or y-million coins.  They'll just make their own from the beginning and make it more attractive to the average Joe.  They'll install "Fed-coin" ATMs in the malls, Fed-coin POS systems in the retailers, etc.

This is why Bitcoin adoption needs to happen at a rapid pace.  Being open source, it's easy for someone to come in with a mousetrap that while may not be better, is more convenient for the masses.

[Rassah]

Please read this https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Scalability