doomad, its your echo chamber that wants to deburden the bitcoin network of users.
Lie.Larger blocks are a bigger deterrent to running a full Bitcoin node than smaller blocks. That's why users on this network have opted for SegWit, which only results in a small increase.
typical mr flipfop
1, doomad your own words about compatibility and permissionless drivel was you saying there was no opt in.
you even admit the truth for once in another topic by saying your adoration for cores attempts to push people off the network that opposed segwit1x. BEFORE segwit1x got locked in.
so you now pretending high majority diverse people of 2015-2017 opt-in for segwit goes against your initial flipped mindset.
try to learn what narrative you want to push and stick with one narrative.
2. again your mindset is stuck in the flip flop echo chamber of rpeated thoughts of the "gigabyte blocks" myth pushed by your centralised friends.
reality is that PROGRESSIVE SCALING such as the same as what happened 2010-2015 (0.25,0.5,0.75,1mb) is not a bigger deterrant.
reality is that users can just change settings or decide if they actually need to be a full on supernode.
EG instead of connecting to 100+ connections. they can bring it down to 10 and thus make each of those 10 connections 10x better speed experience due to less speed dilution. while also for the user themselves not having to broadcast out 100x data but only 10x data. thus benefiting the user and the receiver.. win win.
And before you start blithering on about "forcing users into other networks" (like you often do), the most private and secure way to use LN is to run a full node, so even users of "other networks" have an incentive to run a full Bitcoin node.
LN nodes will be masternodes monitoring multiple coins so they can coinswap.
guess what. when that becomes popular. YOUR flip flop will change and suddenly you will b saying how home users are not restricted to only 1mb-2mb data.
because the reality is home users are not restricted to 1-2-4mb of data..
the actual issues home users have is that they try to go above their need by trying to connect to hundreds of nodes.
as for the stuff about LN running full nodes. even the devs admit people wont be carrying their desktops and laptops around to go shopping. so LN's design for "starbucks coffee"/groceries/pizza small purchases instantly is for the lite wallet app userbase.
its the devs and your echo chamber that keep on saying bitcoin cant handle X while other networks are the solution, yet the other networks will be dominated by third party factories/watchtowers and then users locked into them using autopiloted phone apps.
atleast try doing some research..
your favourite quote shows that you and others FAILED totry flopping issues that slow internet users have.
you failed to realise its a known researched thing since pre 2011 and yet you try to insinuate it as a myth brought about by a scammer in 2016.. sorry but you failed. so yea. thats why i say try doing research before hitting reply
I don't care if the real Satoshi Nakamoto came out of hiding and said it, no one is any any position to determine that "
slow internet users" don't have a right to run a full node. Try to weasel out of it all you like, but it's clearly not wrong of me to point out that Craig "scammer" Wright, a discredited lunatic, likes to peddle the view that such users aren't "worthy" to be a part of the network and it's also not wrong for me to point out that you like to say a similar thing using slightly clever wordplay. I don't care if you're using his rhetoric or he's using yours. You're both as bad as each other as far as I'm concerned.
here you go again i, and MANY others including the real satoshi never said slow internet users dont have the right to run a node. your making that crap up about "no rights"
seriously.. go take your social game word twisting flip flops and use that time to actually learn stuff
what was said and is the general sentiment by those not in the centralist echo chamber. is that user nodes can be full nodes but not all users NEED to b full nodes connected to hundreds of others.
your echo chamber centralists have an agenda of wanting to deburden bitcoin of utility, by saying bitcoin is not fit for everyone.
my and many open minded mindsets are that bitcoin can be used by anyone, but that people can have varying levels of utility.
and if the internet speed is slow theres no NEED to try being a supernode connected to hundreds of others. as it hlps no one by going up so high. its far better to themselves and everyone to set their settings appropriately to be connected. but do so efficiently
(doomad learn the difference between no help by being up so high connection count.. vs your blurred vision thinking that it means no help whatsover to even be on the network...
thats where you got things wrong. you wrongly thought it meant no hlp to the network at all.. the reality is no bnfit to go extreme.. there is a difference.. try learning it)
pieter wuilles quote was saying about dont change the setting UP, due to scare resources..
home users do not NEED to be super nodes as it doesnt help them or others by pushing their systems too hard.
this does not mean home users are useless to the network. it just means they have the wrong settings and not helping themselves. which is a different topic to the whole symbiotic relationship of code rules and auditing of data..
*
hears the sounds of moving goalposts and weasel words*
How many users are changing the setting up, franky1? How many of these "super nodes" are bottlenecking the network in your opinion? Surely you've done some
research on this to support your claims?
I'm not buying it. You've expressed your disdain for those who run full nodes, particularly Core nodes, on more than one occasion. You call them mindless sheep every chance you get:
lol. you do realise the quote of pieter. was from a blog, where the original poster was trying to increase his nodecount...
heres a hint. the title of that:
"How does one attain 1,000+ connections like blockchain.info?"
as for my distain for core. thats about distain for centralism and lack of diversity..
again you love centralism, so stop your flip floppy trying to insinuate that im in the same camp as you.
sorry but no. YOUR the centralist. you love core dominance. you love how users follow CORES rules.
im for DIVERSITY where there are DIFERENT BRANDS of full nodes so people have choices
(pre-empt your reply:
doomad will say, 'if you dont like cores rules f**k off to another network
ill say: 'diversity is about different brands on same network where consensus ensures core dont just be dictators/tyrants in control..
but have to be byzantine generals of a level playing field. finding a fair balance of consensus where diversity finds agreement... which is what bitcoins/blockchains original invention/innovation/lightbulb revolutionary new consept was all about)
yes i know you will say "those enforcing the rules" but thats the issue... CORE are in command of such. and users are just distributed 'compatible' sheep of core because the CHOICE of brands(of full nodes that would allow opposition) has been removed
As always, your last resort is to insult the intelligence of everyone securing the BTC network. Please keep calling them sheep. Please keep telling us about your genuine and fervent belief that all the users on the BTC chain are too stupid to decide for themselves and are just blindly following what one dev team tell them to do. Please keep telling us we're just mindless drones and how only your vivid fantasies (that aren't even remotely feasible to implement) will somehow save us from ourselves.
[/quote]
insults? again lets word count your post history, vs mine for actual insults. see who actually does the real insults.
my comments about users are just following core rules is just that. core have plopped themselves at the core of the network, called themselves the core and reference client, done loads of social drama stuff to keep themselves at the center and thus now there is not really any diversity in the network
even you yourself have spoke loudly about how you would love to REKT core opposers, you admired cores actions about pushing out a few opposing bips.
You can't deny the conflict of interest in the fact that there are thousands of nodes out there enforcing rules you despise and it would benefit your cause greatly if large numbers of them were to stop doing what they're doing. Obviously you're going to support any hint of the notion that some of them might be a burden to the network. It's understandable that it would be beneficial, from your perspective, if businesses were left to decide on consensus matters, because many of them were supportive of larger blocks. Funny coincidence, that.
whether a node is connected to 1000 others or just 2. changes nothing in regards to tru honest consensus.
users finding a setting level that lets then be full nodes without causing their own 'bandwidth issues' cries changes nothing about their consensus level.
but again. you are just a social flip flopper who knows nothing about the bitcoin network even after i nicely asked you months to try researching it.
...........................
anyway
seems doomad cant get the hint about which way he wants to flip or flop. and will never take the time to do some independant thinking.
so lets move on
..........
summary
usernodes:mining nodes:merchants have a symbiotic relationship. they ALL validate.
however they all can choose their level of NEED.
EG if there are 1 billion humans using bitcoin. not all 1 billion NEED/WANT to be full nodes. in no way should they be forced to being full nodes with 100+ connections just so some centralist group can shout "the network cant handle it, move everyone off the network"
instead users can choose to lower their setting/involvement as they please. EG slow internet users dont need 100-1000 connections and many devs even going back as far as 2009 have said it too.
but to have a certain group echoing how bitcoin cant scale because of lame reasons that can easily be fixed by settings changes.. is not the right ploy to then promote alternative networks.
its far better to allow settings to change so that it increases utility. unlike a certain group who want users to get pushed off the network if their opinion doesnt match CORES roadmap of centralised commercial networks