Topic: . - page 5. (Read 24756 times)
Now that the binaries are out, we just have to wait and see how many nodes are people running, im sure they will try to run a bunch of fake nodes like they did with XT, but once they realize not even doing that is enough, they will give up and Classic will join XT in the group of aborted hard fork attempts.
Summary:
1) 'Node Centralization' is no reason to choose between 1MB Core and 2MB other
2) Doubling block size will have negligible impact upon node count
3) In the end, nodes are negligible marginal utility anyhow.
1) agreed; the debate is fees vs. adoption; I, for one, would rather delay the onset of fees in favor of adoption for now1) 'Node Centralization' is no reason to choose between 1MB Core and 2MB other
2) Doubling block size will have negligible impact upon node count
3) In the end, nodes are negligible marginal utility anyhow.
2) agreed; with >5800 full nodes, I sincerely doubt all that many will be forced off the network unable to keep up
3) agreed; which is unfortunate; I, for one, would like to see non-mining full nodes paid at least a little bit
if those nodes do not get a satisfactory reward then supporting transactions would slowly become an unwanted task. This would be a huge problem for the ecosystem.
It looks like the days of this proposal and the HF are over. The industry has made its decision; poor Gavin.
Quote
Quote
SegWit is almost ready and we support its deployment as a step in scaling.
Quote
It is our firm belief that a contentious hard-fork right now would be extremely detrimental to the bitcoin ecosystem.
Be kind to Gavin, he's our little cuddly mascot!
gg y'all!!!
He's a human stress test. Like lambie.
It looks like the days of this proposal and the HF are over. The industry has made its decision; poor Gavin.
Quote
Quote
SegWit is almost ready and we support its deployment as a step in scaling.
Quote
It is our firm belief that a contentious hard-fork right now would be extremely detrimental to the bitcoin ecosystem.
Be kind to Gavin, he's our little cuddly mascot!
gg y'all!!!
It looks like the days of this proposal and the HF are over. The industry has made its decision; poor Gavin.
Quote
Quote
SegWit is almost ready and we support its deployment as a step in scaling.
Quote
It is our firm belief that a contentious hard-fork right now would be extremely detrimental to the bitcoin ecosystem.
The question is absolutely not "can more than 2mb can be uploaded?" The question is not, is it possible to run a node? The question is, at what point do bandwidth limitations disincentivize the operation of full nodes
The answer to that is 'at any block size whatsoever, including as little as one transaction per 10 minutes'. There is absolutely no realizable direct positive incentive for any other then a miner, merchant, or exchange to operate a node. None. There is no renumeration for so doing. None. Nada. Bupkis.
Incentives to run a node -- there's an elusive concept. Yes, there is no tangible economic benefit, as I've stated myself, hence the importance of curbing the primary disincentive to running a node -- bandwidth requirements.
You seem to be suggesting that miners, merchants, and exchanges are the only entities (or people...) running nodes. Do you have any proof of that? Are you suggesting that the number of miners, merchants, and exchanges was cut in half over time and has been downtrending for years? Because that describes the number of operating nodes.
More importantly, what kind of p2p network is this that miners, merchants, and exchanges are the only entities we expect to run nodes? Did I misread the whitepaper or are we talking about two different coins? SPV has its place but I don't agree that virtually the entire userbase of bitcoin should trust "miners, merchants, and exchanges" -- no matter how centralized they become -- to validate their transactions. In a sentence, that defeats the purpose of bitcoin.
That canard has no place in a 'core vs classic' comparison.
It does, as one team has just released node software to increase the block size limit. Block size directly impacts the bandwidth needs of nodes -- the only real disincentive to run one. Would you agree that the entire economy depending on a single node for validation endangers security and fungibility? How about 100 nodes? 1000? Where is the limit, and what is your evidence that typical users are safe from, say, Sybil attacks?
Some cap (which conceivably will not be 1MB forever) that guarantees that "some" home nodes can survive keeps the network secure. On a global basis, the 1MB cap already ruled out typical home-grade connections, like 3G/4G, dialup, satellite, DSL. Capped cable has you choosing between running a node and otherwise using your internet connection as you'd intend. Bitcoin shouldn't be limited to the minority with uncapped cable and fiber connections. And we have some reason to believe that many nodes are already running in VPS, so the numbers are already inflated. If we continue with this rhetoric that block size limit is unnecessary, what guarantee is there that anyone will run home nodes? If none, what will protect users from regional feather forks? Sybil attacks? We're just supposed to trust the Coinbases of the world to take care of us? When did that become acceptable for bitcoin -- a p2p network?
Fact is, any fully validating core node with the SegWit Omnibus Changeset implemented will need the signatures in order to validate. The fact that they have been repartitioned into a separate chain means nothing to such a node - it still needs the signatures in order to validate. Accordingly, The SegWit Omnibus Changeset is as big a disincentive to operating a node than is classic.
In a nutshell, and IMO, there are two ways to approach the increased cost (upload bandwidth) of increased throughput, all else equal. We can externalize the cost to all nodes -- but then we can expect a drop in all nodes. Alternatively, we can distribute the cost to those who are using it (and who can pay for it).
How, specifically, is this as big of a disincentive to operating a node as Classic? You've also stated before that this is a trust issue. Can you provide an estimate of the cost for an attacker to exploit the signature chain, if this is a real threat? If you are suggesting that segwit is a security threat, could you provide examples?
But it's really kind of irrelevant - as has been pointed out, an insignificant proportion of current nodes will stop node-ing simply because the disk space required goes up from $3.09 worth to $6.18 worth, nor if they need to go from 10 MB upload every 10 min to 20 MB upload every 10 minutes.
I don't think anyone here is really arguing about disk space. But could you provide some evidence that "an insignificant proportion of current nodes will stop node-ing" if block size doubles? No data I've seen appears to support that, but maybe you could provide some.
Your numbers also reflect such low maxconnections -- the absolute minimum, verging on harming the network more than helping. If such "leechers" are taking up connections where other nodes with higher maxconnections could make better use of them, they are better off being shut down.
But it is still really kind of irrelevant - the dirty little secret is that independent nodes essentially fulfill zero marginal utility. Sure, every node validates transactions. Guess what - so does every intelligent miner. They would not risk building a block that has a transaction included that would be rejected by the rest of the network.
Intelligent miner =/= honest miner. Non-mining nodes reflect the interests of non-mining users, serving as a check on the power of miners. Non-mining nodes, by not trusting mining nodes and enforcing the protocol are integral to the integrity of the p2p system. Without them, miners have simply replaced central banks -- they may be competing against each other, but they can also collude against the userbase. And if nodes are sufficiently centralized, miners are not the only concern; it becomes much easier to coordinate Sybil attacks.
Your argument places trust in the "intelligence" of miners. Of course an intelligent miner, or a group of colluding miners, would risk publishing potentially invalid blocks, if it were profitable to do so. Miners have carried out attacks before; the only thing they care about is profit. Non-mining nodes are essential to keeping miners honest.
Summary:
1) 'Node Centralization' is no reason to choose between 1MB Core and 2MB other
2) Doubling block size will have negligible impact upon node count
3) In the end, nodes are negligible marginal utility anyhow.
1) 'Node Centralization' is no reason to choose between 1MB Core and 2MB other
2) Doubling block size will have negligible impact upon node count
3) In the end, nodes are negligible marginal utility anyhow.
With IBLTs and weak blocks, and after segwit, I'd be more confident in #1. For now, the trend in node health gives cause to be wary of putting any unnecessary pressure on bandwidth. In reality, the biggest reason to choose between 1MB Core and 2MB Classic (that is the only option based on released software) is that a hard fork implemented without miner consensus is very likely to permanently break bitcoin into multiple ledgers. I don't think you've provided a modicum of evidence for #2. Regarding #3, the utility of, and incentive to run[ning] a node are elusive but not non-existent. Non-mining nodes are essential to maintaining the integrity and security of the protocol, and many on this forum including myself and David Rabahy above me, can attest to running nodes because we want the system to succeed and/or are invested in its success. But the more you squeeze node operators, the less of us there will be.
you just continue to spout off meaningless insults.
I take grave exception to that insinuation: I always try to import some meaning - even if you dont quite get them.
Please, take his glove and slap yourself on the cheek, with utmost force!!
I will not tolerate my insults being insulted.
Logically, hoarders have an incentive to keep the system robust and decentralized -- i.e. running a node, even if not transacting.
Me exactly. Summary:
1) 'Node Centralization' is no reason to choose between 1MB Core and 2MB other
2) Doubling block size will have negligible impact upon node count
3) In the end, nodes are negligible marginal utility anyhow.
1) agreed; the debate is fees vs. adoption; I, for one, would rather delay the onset of fees in favor of adoption for now1) 'Node Centralization' is no reason to choose between 1MB Core and 2MB other
2) Doubling block size will have negligible impact upon node count
3) In the end, nodes are negligible marginal utility anyhow.
2) agreed; with >5800 full nodes, I sincerely doubt all that many will be forced off the network unable to keep up
3) agreed; which is unfortunate; I, for one, would like to see non-mining full nodes paid at least a little bit
That doesn't prove that use of SPV/web wallets is causing the decline in nodes. It only proves that more people are using blockchain.info than in the past, which you would expect if bitcoin is increasing in adoption. The number of blockchain.info wallet users is also not an accurate representation of the bitcoin economy.
put some numbers into some scenarios. charts, hypothesis. instead of instantly debunking it because it doesnt fit your mindset.
blockchain.info was just one example. theres coinbase user statistics too. and multibit download stats. all of which can be compared to core downloads and node counts.
This has nothing to do with my mindset; it's about the limits of the data you're pointing to. None of this would prove that use of SPV/web wallets is causing the decline in nodes. It would only prove that more people are using blockchain.info, Coinbase and Multibit than in the past, which you would expect if bitcoin is increasing in adoption.
The growth in SPV/web wallets compared to Core isn't going to explain much here. One might expect use of SPV/web wallets to grow faster than the use of full nodes as bitcoin becomes more mainstream. That doesn't explain why the number of full nodes is steadily falling...over a period when block size has been steadily increasing.
then when you link up all the users that there are. and put them against stats that only 288,000 transactions a day are currently happening. then you will see that people are not spending coins multiple times a day. but maybe once a week.
this is usually the order(priority first) of normal peoples rational thinking when looking after their finances
1. ease of use
2. security of holdings
3. using a self sustaining store that cannot fail..
for instance. many people prefer a bank account that allows them free 24/7 access to their funds with a swipe of a card far before thinking of putting it in a secure bank account that needs a signed check, that only operates 9-5. and far far before worrying about the banking institution as a whole and wanting to put funds into something decentralised and eternally self sustaining(gold).
and so. most people with < 1btc OR who dont spend daily, and mostly holding for 6+ months. dont care much about being a node. they will just sweep there privkeys into a web wallet and move funds out when the time comes. they basically have no reason to run a node.
those who have >$1000 would want a decentralised solution but if they are not spending daily. they see no need to run a node. so they would choose multibit or electrum as a bit more security.
those who have >$1000 and do spend daily would be more tempted to run a full node.
this is usually the order(priority first) of normal peoples rational thinking when looking after their finances
1. ease of use
2. security of holdings
3. using a self sustaining store that cannot fail..
for instance. many people prefer a bank account that allows them free 24/7 access to their funds with a swipe of a card far before thinking of putting it in a secure bank account that needs a signed check, that only operates 9-5. and far far before worrying about the banking institution as a whole and wanting to put funds into something decentralised and eternally self sustaining(gold).
and so. most people with < 1btc OR who dont spend daily, and mostly holding for 6+ months. dont care much about being a node. they will just sweep there privkeys into a web wallet and move funds out when the time comes. they basically have no reason to run a node.
those who have >$1000 would want a decentralised solution but if they are not spending daily. they see no need to run a node. so they would choose multibit or electrum as a bit more security.
those who have >$1000 and do spend daily would be more tempted to run a full node.
I respect that you are attempting to form an explanation for the perpetual decline in nodes that is specifically not bandwidth-related. But none of this sounds reasonable, or backable by statistics or logic. If certain groups don't care about running a node, as you say, how does that explain the persistent downward trend in nodes over years? It doesn't. Blockchain.info and SPV wallets like Electrum have been around since 2011.
so now that you know that bandwidth is not really an issue(previous posts).
None of this establishes that bandwidth is not an issue. At all.
the key to increasing nodes is not just getting more people adopting bitcoin.. because an increase of hoarder of bitcoin has proven to not help the node could.
How could you prove this? Logically, hoarders have an incentive to keep the system robust and decentralized -- i.e. running a node, even if not transacting.
but instead making bitcoin more useful. so that if people are spending funds more than once a week they have more reason to be a node. not just for security. but also the utility of it. also ensuring you segwit fanboys inform the community the importance of being full archival nodes and stop saying that compatible mode (no witness) is fine. aswell as not messing with the TX fee because that is also a buzzkill for usability
Bitcoin is already useful. It's a decentralized, permissionless way to store and transfer value. Buzzkill or not, decentralization is paramount to low fees. But fear not, this is no doomsday situation. In addition to segwit:
I said that bitcoin has capacity limitations that are linked to bandwidth limitations for individual nodes. Further optimizations like IBLTs and weak blocks could greatly mitigate those limitations (and over time, infrastructural limits to upload bandwidth should improve as well).
Once we mitigate these bandwidth limitations, increasing the block size limit stops looking so dangerous.
Quote
IBLTs and weak blocks: 90% or more reduction in critical bandwidth to relay blocks created by miners who want their blocks to propagate quickly with a modest increase in total bandwidth, bringing many of the benefits of the Bitcoin Relay Network to all full nodes. This improvement is accomplished by spreading bandwidth usage out over time for full nodes, which means IBLT and weak blocks may allow for safer future increases to the max block size.
Once we mitigate these bandwidth limitations, increasing the block size limit stops looking so dangerous.
So stop making it out like this is a doomsday situation, Franky.
Are we being trolled or am I in hermeneutical hell?
NWOTD! Thanks!
The question is absolutely not "can more than 2mb can be uploaded?" The question is not, is it possible to run a node? The question is, at what point do bandwidth limitations disincentivize the operation of full nodes
The answer to that is 'at any block size whatsoever, including as little as one transaction per 10 minutes'. There is absolutely no realizable direct positive incentive for any other then a miner, merchant, or exchange to operate a node. None. There is no renumeration for so doing. None. Nada. Bupkis.
Quote
to the extent that centralization endangers security and fungibility?
That canard has no place in a 'core vs classic' comparison. Fact is, any fully validating core node with the SegWit Omnibus Changeset implemented will need the signatures in order to validate. The fact that they have been repartitioned into a separate chain means nothing to such a node - it still needs the signatures in order to validate. Accordingly, The SegWit Omnibus Changeset is as big a disincentive to operating a node than is classic.
But it's really kind of irrelevant - as has been pointed out, an insignificant proportion of current nodes will stop node-ing simply because the disk space required goes up from $3.09 worth to $6.18 worth, nor if they need to go from 10 MB upload every 10 min to 20 MB upload every 10 minutes.
But it is still really kind of irrelevant - the dirty little secret is that independent nodes essentially fulfill zero marginal utility. Sure, every node validates transactions. Guess what - so does every intelligent miner. They would not risk building a block that has a transaction included that would be rejected by the rest of the network.
Summary:
1) 'Node Centralization' is no reason to choose between 1MB Core and 2MB other
2) Doubling block size will have negligible impact upon node count
3) In the end, nodes are negligible marginal utility anyhow.
That doesn't prove that use of SPV/web wallets is causing the decline in nodes. It only proves that more people are using blockchain.info than in the past, which you would expect if bitcoin is increasing in adoption. The number of blockchain.info wallet users is also not an accurate representation of the bitcoin economy.
put some numbers into some scenarios. charts, hypothesis. instead of instantly debunking it because it doesnt fit your mindset.
blockchain.info was just one example. theres coinbase user statistics too. and multibit download stats. all of which can be compared to core downloads and node counts.
then when you link up all the users that there are. and put them against stats that only 288,000 transactions a day are currently happening. then you will see that people are not spending coins multiple times a day. but maybe once a week.
this is usually the order(priority first) of normal peoples rational thinking when looking after their finances
1. ease of use
2. security of holdings
3. using a self sustaining store that cannot fail..
for instance. many people prefer a bank account that allows them free 24/7 access to their funds with a swipe of a card far before thinking of putting it in a secure bank account that needs a signed check, that only operates 9-5. and far far before worrying about the banking institution as a whole and wanting to put funds into something decentralised and eternally self sustaining(gold).
and so. most people with < 1btc OR who dont spend daily, and mostly holding for 6+ months. dont care much about being a node. they will just sweep there privkeys into a web wallet and move funds out when the time comes. they basically have no reason to run a node.
those who have >$1000 would want a decentralised solution but if they are not spending daily. they see no need to run a node. so they would choose multibit or electrum as a bit more security.
those who have >$1000 and do spend daily would be more tempted to run a full node.
so now that you know that bandwidth is not really an issue(previous posts). the key to increasing nodes is not just getting more people adopting bitcoin.. because an increase of hoarder of bitcoin has proven to not help the node could.
but instead making bitcoin more useful. so that if people are spending funds more than once a week they have more reason to be a node. not just for security. but also the utility of it. also ensuring you segwit fanboys inform the community the importance of being full archival nodes and stop saying that compatible mode (no witness) is fine. aswell as not messing with the TX fee because that is also a buzzkill for usability
... many people around here seem to think that operating a node is comparable to downloading a web page every 10 minutes.
You are the first person to mention that. I don't think that anyone here believes that.
You've missed much of the discussion spanning back to summer of last year. You're new here. I won't hold it against you.
By the way, I was partly responding to this guy who was talking about the number of web pages he downloads in 10 minutes:
But I sometimes look at more than one webpage in 10 minutes.
Reading comprehension, people! It's real important when you're trying to decode what smarter people are trying to tell you.
Indeed. A lot of people either have trouble understanding the concept of "implication" or are playing dumb about it for the sake of argument. Hence why Nick Szabo's comment, "If you want to store your money on the web use Mt. Gox" went over so many peoples' heads.
Nah, you still don't make sense. So the domain for this discussion has been extended to include "everything written since the summer 2015" - thats quite the leap.
Sure -- as I've been saying, Classic supporters have largely been making the same baseless claims and comparisons that XT supporters did.
Lets say we just keep it to this thread - right back to the start, ok?
Why? Seems sort of arbitrary. Are you not capable of retaining more than a few thoughts at a time?
Still, you are the only person I am aware of who thinks that *anyone* believes that running a node is equivalent to downloading a webpage every 10 minutes. Do you believe this yourself? Of course not, so then why would you assume that anyone else would be that dickish or clueless?
I said "comparable" by the way. People make these comparisons all the time. Again, you're new here. Here's one from ITT:
The issue is the bandwidth load that individual nodes take on, which due to this "massive redundancy" is not at all comparable to downloading a web page.
But I sometimes look at more than one webpage in 10 minutes.I think your issue is that deep down you realise you are defending the indefensible and some part of your inner soul is rebelling at your conscious attempts to promote idiotic fallacies.
Considering you've never mounted an actual argument against anything I've said, you aren't qualified to say that. You've literally never developed an argument that wasn't a personal attack, an intentional mischaracterization of my words, or pure opinion. You never back up anything you say; you just continue to spout off meaningless insults.
I run a full non-mining node (Core) 24x7 (or close to it). Clearly it costs me money to do so but it's ok I don't mind. I do very few transactions, less than one a month on average. I'd like to be paid but won't shutdown my node if I am not. I have not detected any issues with bandwidth but I do have a pretty big pipe (86Mbps down/12Mbps up (measured)). I do allow incoming connections and regularly see >70 of them (might be limited by my old/weak router). Occasionally I see my node listed as the relay (silly but I feel a little proud).
I am very much inclined to switch to one of the packages intent on increasing the block size. I want Bitcoin to thrive. I prefer to keep fees low in favor of adoption for now.
I am very much inclined to switch to one of the packages intent on increasing the block size. I want Bitcoin to thrive. I prefer to keep fees low in favor of adoption for now.
great that you have 70+ connections, even with 35 connections your would still be doing a great part of being in the network. so dont ever think bandwidth is an issue.
even on 7 connections, the logic of "the 7degrees of separation" still would make you a valid part of the network. so being 70 connections is a great thing.
so you wont need to worry about this whole 2mb or 2mb+segwit debate.. you wont even need to worry about 4mb that may happen in a few years..
at worse if in MANY years, if your internet speeds has not increase due to your ISP upgrading your service and bitcoin bloat is alot lot lot more than any proposed amounts so far.. all you need to do is reduce your max connections down. so that your still part of the network, but not overloading yourself.
so keep it up, your doing fine. more than fine
The falling of full node count is a simple result of people prefer to use off-chain web wallets because of their simplicity and convenience (Before they were using full nodes as their wallet). In fact 99% of my transactions nowadays happen between exchanges and web wallets, my node is never used to process transaction, but simply works as a dedicated mining/relay node
Any proof of this, or just based on your personal anecdote?
ill answer this question for johnyj
blockchain.info users increases while nodes drop
https://blockchain.info/charts/my-wallet-n-users
amount of transactions using blockchain increases
https://blockchain.info/charts/my-wallet-n-tx
you will also note that while more people are preferring blockchain.info wallets.. the number of transactions is NOT on the same steep incline. which is a display that less people are doing transactions regularly, even with more people.
and that also proves my point. people are not spending so often so dont see much point being a full node if they are only spending once every few days
That doesn't prove that use of SPV/web wallets is causing the decline in nodes. It only proves that more people are using blockchain.info than in the past, which you would expect if bitcoin is increasing in adoption. The number of blockchain.info wallet users is also not an accurate representation of the bitcoin economy.
Once we mitigate these bandwidth limitations, increasing the block size limit stops looking so dangerous.
Franky, all you've proven is that video-conferencing is a slightly better analogy for the upload requirements of running a bitcoin node than is downloading a web page. I don't need to "debunk Skype," as you put it, because the question is not whether "the internet cannot cope with their activity".
The question is absolutely not "can more than 2mb can be uploaded?" The question is not, is it possible to run a node? The question is, at what point do bandwidth limitations disincentivize the operation of full nodes to the extent that centralization endangers security and fungibility?
2mb.. or even 2mb+segwit is not an issue.. and is not a nuclear bomb threat.. so at this point of this topic of 2mb.. CHILL OUT. there is no doomsday.
i do agree that 20mb is a doomsday. but 2mb is not. so that hopefully ends your argument that 2mb is a problem.
I posed a theoretical question -- you are the one getting dramatic. How do you know that 20MB is doomsday? How do you know that 2MB is not? My biggest problem is with people arguing for a contentious hard fork (dangerous in its own right) without providing any technical justifications for it.
We already know that over the past several years, as block size has gradually increased, operating nodes have persistently fallen. Would you suggest that block size, which is directly related to bandwidth requirements for nodes, is not related to the perpetual decline in nodes?
blaming it purely on bandwidth as the reason is false.
many users are not running a full node 24-7 not due to bandwidth concerns. but more so to do with the fact that people are not day trading as much, people are not spending 3-10 times a day so they see less point in keeping their computer on 24-7 if they are not actually going to use it.
EG in gaming. if you want to go away for half an hour and do something else. you just go AFK(away from keyboard) and minimise the game while keeping it running. but if your only going to play the game for 10 minutes a day. you will log out and switch off the computer because you know you wont be using it any time soon.
ive even seen it in IRC chat rooms. those that just go AFK return promptly but never log out of IRC. but when people say 'im going out for the day' they log out completely.
Can you prove any of this? "The extent to which bitcoin node operators are day trading" (via their wallets
) is not a measurable pressure on nodes. Upload bandwidth requirements are. And why is this comparable to running a node, anyway? Why would I turn off my node just to go AFK? Wouldn't you agree that it would be optimal for node operators to keep them running, rather than turning them on and off for short instances of use?For my claim to be true, bandwidth does not to be "purely" the reason, but part of it. That implies that bandwidth is a real pressure on node centralization that has to be considered if bitcoin is to remain a p2p protocol.
again internet speed is not an issue, the fear that it would be an issue .. is the issue. even on standard DSL in 2011 people on livestream/twich/skype were ok, and 5 years later still ok.. infact millions of people.. not 5000,, millions of people are making HD content which is actually more bandwidth than my numbers in my last post.
Again, you are comparing whether one can run Skype with whether one can run a bitcoin node -- already a poor analogy given that optimally a node is running all the time (i.e. not just during a teleconference). The question is not whether one can run a bitcoin node:
I said that bitcoin has capacity limitations that are linked to bandwidth limitations for individual nodes. Further optimizations like IBLTs and weak blocks could greatly mitigate those limitations (and over time, infrastructural limits to upload bandwidth should improve as well).
Once we mitigate these bandwidth limitations, increasing the block size limit stops looking so dangerous.
Quote
IBLTs and weak blocks: 90% or more reduction in critical bandwidth to relay blocks created by miners who want their blocks to propagate quickly with a modest increase in total bandwidth, bringing many of the benefits of the Bitcoin Relay Network to all full nodes. This improvement is accomplished by spreading bandwidth usage out over time for full nodes, which means IBLT and weak blocks may allow for safer future increases to the max block size.
Once we mitigate these bandwidth limitations, increasing the block size limit stops looking so dangerous.
I run a full non-mining node (Core) 24x7 (or close to it). Clearly it costs me money to do so but it's ok I don't mind. I do very few transactions, less than one a month on average. I'd like to be paid but won't shutdown my node if I am not. I have not detected any issues with bandwidth but I do have a pretty big pipe (86Mbps down/12Mbps up (measured)). I do allow incoming connections and regularly see >70 of them (might be limited by my old/weak router). Occasionally I see my node listed as the relay (silly but I feel a little proud).
I am very much inclined to switch to one of the packages intent on increasing the block size. I want Bitcoin to thrive. I prefer to keep fees low in favor of adoption for now.
I am very much inclined to switch to one of the packages intent on increasing the block size. I want Bitcoin to thrive. I prefer to keep fees low in favor of adoption for now.
The falling of full node count is a simple result of people prefer to use off-chain web wallets because of their simplicity and convenience (Before they were using full nodes as their wallet). In fact 99% of my transactions nowadays happen between exchanges and web wallets, my node is never used to process transaction, but simply works as a dedicated mining/relay node
Any proof of this, or just based on your personal anecdote?
ill answer this question for johnyj
blockchain.info users increases while nodes drop
https://blockchain.info/charts/my-wallet-n-users
amount of transactions using blockchain increases
https://blockchain.info/charts/my-wallet-n-tx
you will also note that while more people are preferring blockchain.info wallets.. the number of transactions is NOT on the same steep incline. which is a display that less people are doing transactions regularly, even with more people.
and that also proves my point. people are not spending so often so dont see much point being a full node if they are only spending once every few days
... many people around here seem to think that operating a node is comparable to downloading a web page every 10 minutes.
You are the first person to mention that. I don't think that anyone here believes that.
You've missed much of the discussion spanning back to summer of last year. You're new here. I won't hold it against you.
By the way, I was partly responding to this guy who was talking about the number of web pages he downloads in 10 minutes:
But I sometimes look at more than one webpage in 10 minutes.
Reading comprehension, people! It's real important when you're trying to decode what smarter people are trying to tell you.
Indeed. A lot of people either have trouble understanding the concept of "implication" or are playing dumb about it for the sake of argument. Hence why Nick Szabo's comment, "If you want to store your money on the web use Mt. Gox" went over so many peoples' heads.
OMfuckingG! Are we being trolled or am I in hermeneutical hell?
Jump to: