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 right now. but 2mb is not. so that hopefully ends your argument that 2mb is a problem.
maybe worth saving the doomsday arguments if within the next year we suddenly debate 8-20mb.. but until then CHILL OUT
as for the rest of your post
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.
As a node operator, I can tell you that bandwidth is the only possible reason why I wouldn't run a node (as opposed to storage, hard disk resources, hardware). That's the only pressure. Most people do not have unlimited fiber connections. Most people have capped-bandwidth cable or low quality DSL. So the question is not, "can these people run a node, using much or all of their upload bandwidth? Or will they choose not to? The latter is what we must contend with -- and is related to the perpetual decline in nodes over the past couple years.
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.
now here is my doomsday theory of lack of nodes...
segwit, with its promises of non-witness relay is going to wrongly tempt people to run in compatibility mode and not archival mode. and that alone will kill off more full node(archival mode) users than any bandwidth concerns will, purely because they wont be holding full data to be classed as fullnodes.. even if they run it 24-7 they are still not going to be full nodes.
what needs to be done is to chill out about bandwidth doomsdays. and instead highlight how important it is for full nodes to ensure they run archival mode on segwit. and also to drum up new uses of bitcoin so that people want to use bitcoin more than once a day, to be tempted to leave their computers on 24-7. because things like increasing the transaction fee is not a good tempter for people to want to spend more often. they are more likely to wait it out and spend more wisely and less often. losing the desire to be part of the network.
