Topic: 2MB Pros and Cons - page 10. (Read 9735 times)

You say the chances of a contentious hard fork is a marginal risk (insinuating it not worth talking about!) but when that "marginal risk" results in a religious war and that's what it would be a god dam holy war, I can't imagine a adequately informed person would be willing to take that risk.

Oh, err, Hi just seen after my posting that you are inside my Signature. Congratulations!

I'd be interested to know how you came to the conclusion that altcoins were ever a part of Satoshi's vision for scaling. The white paper?

I would never use bitcoin if I couldn't run a full node.

altcoins existed since litecoin, and are the original scaling mechanism envisioned by Satoshi. Simply start 2000 Bitcoin clones with 1MB blocks each and you have 2GB worth of blocks (visa scale) - instantly!  limited bitcoin capacity allows altcoins to innovate, experiment and explore novel concepts. If Bitcoin actually becomes challenged by an alt (it won't), it can adopt

No... I honestly "hand of god" don't think its a marginal risk at all, I think its a certainty.  If 10% of our current user base refuse to upgrade to 2mb they could keep the 1mb chain alive. Yes it would be stalled for many weeks and then attacked on and off for potentially years, we would have to wait for 100 or 200 confirmations or more for each transaction but it could be done. And if the original chain survives.. well you should know what that means.

This I agree with, the only problem is that so many altcoins are scams that there is little trust in altcoins.

I won't go near them because every single one I have looked at either has a huge premine or other shady aspect to it, or doesn't keep up with changes in core that we know are necessary fixes.

But in the future I believe there will be region specific altcoins that work (region specific meaning businesses in a certain geographic region are more likely to accept them) and that bitcoin will largely be the mechanism by which people exchange from one altcoin to another when they travel or do business outside their region.

visa's capacity is only based on 60 years of slow growth to 800million users.
why does there have to be equal capacity by 2017??
bitcoin doesnt have 800 million users. i dont think it will get 800million users in 16 months or less

so lets base it on bitcoin users (2mill) and make rational judgement of perceived growth slowly

at the moment visa stats say that their users do approximately 40 transactions a year (some daily some only monthly) per user
http://www.statista.com/statistics/279275/average-credit-card-transaction-volume-per-card-worldwide/

so bitcoin has 2million users. making it 80mill transactions buffer needed as a minimum
bitcoin does ~2000tx a block, 144 blocks, 365 days a year = 105,120,000tx a year

so 1mb can handle 2million people doing an average 50 transactions.
or reworded
bitcoin at 1mb can handle 2.5million people doing similar transactions as on visa

which means 2mb can handle 2mill people doing 100tx each or 5million people doing similar visa card uses.

now lets think about 2mb+segwit (2million people 200tx or 10million people doing similar visa trend transactions.)

and thats probably going to be available in 2017

then we can calmdown and know over 15 years we can slow grow more (it doesnt need to be visa comparable by 2017)

to put it into prospective by 2017 (2mb+segwit) we will be at 10% of paypal or 10% of visa US or 1.25% of visa world wide.

which if we had lets say 4mb+segwit in 2020 20%paypal, 20%visa US, 2.5% visa worldwide.

then we can look at LN which meant to be 15x more possibilitys (take that number loosly as its based on lauda's numbers)

meaning
2mb+segwit+LN = 150% paypal, 150% visa USA and 18.75% visa world wide.
4mb+segwit+LN = 300% paypal, 300% visa USA and 37.5% visa world wide.
8mb+segwit+LN = 600% paypal, 600% visa USA and 75% visa world wide.

so atmost
12mb+segwit+LN = 900% paypal, 900%visa USA and 112.5% visa world wide.

now we all know 12mb+segwit is actually more like 24mb real data so dont expect to grow to that by 2018-2020. but i can see it easily happening before 2030.. very easily

altcoin hostility. altcoins existed since litecoin, and are the original scaling mechanism envisioned by Satoshi. Simply start 2000 Bitcoin clones with 1MB blocks each and you have 2GB worth of blocks (visa scale) - instantly!  limited bitcoin capacity allows altcoins to innovate, experiment and explore novel concepts. If Bitcoin actually becomes challenged by an alt (it won't), it can adopt

Bump to 2MB could signalize: raising cap forever is okay. Changing hard rules anytime is fine.

Getting on a slippery slope. With large enough blocks, only high-end  datacenter servers could participate in Bitcoin.

Con: HF potentially goes bad and the mother of all DDos wars breaks out between two distinct camps/chains/networks.

I would never use bitcoin if I couldn't run a full node.

Hark fork is not a con. bitcoin has hard forked several times. Many altcoins have hard forked to change features. If you give a few months notic, there is no problem.

I believe the point is that it wouldn't be a final solution and more work and optimisation would still need to be done in order to achieve similar scalability to other payment methods.  Otherwise we're just going to have the same issues later down the line.

Con: network latency will increase, potentially forcing some full node clients with high latency or low bandwidth connections from participating. (think small African village in bum fuck nowhere for instance)
Con "less adoption" <--see what I did there?