I have already explained why we have less nodes today then we did in the past. I will repeat for the third time in this discussion that SPV wallets and web wallets and an influx of "normal" Bitcoin users who are not ideologically motivated to run a full node. This and the increased difficulty is part of the reason for this decline.
We are not at a all time low in terms of node count actually, node count has increased after the launch of XT, and since then it has actually stabilized. I do expect to see a trend reversal with increased adoption as we are already partially seeing today.
You are hopeless. Yes, that's an ad hominem and a non-argument. Still, yours are non-arguments as well.
If Bitcoin does not scale to accommodate a greater amount of transactions directly then this would impact node count as well when compared to allowing increased transactional capacity, since increased adoption would also lead to an increased node count, therefore increasing the blocksize needs to ideally be a balancing act between actual adoption and transaction volume.
Why do you keep repeating these lies?
If they where lies you would have been able to disprove them or at least effectively argue against my claims. So far you have failed to so, which is probably why you are now just resorting to calling me a liar.
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/why-i-support-bip101-1164464 Argument from ignorance/silence.
There's no way Dorian Satoshi Nakamoto is 6 foot.
On a serious note, I still do not understand how big blockers still don't seem to get it. We already have centralized mining, im still waiting for a convincing explanation of how centralizing the nodes would be a good idea (and this is what would happen once the blocks become too big and they will). Having to rely on offchain transactions isn't ideal, but the world isn't ideal, and it's certainly better than a group of 4 or 5 private companies owning most of the nodes.
Increasing the blocksize would not make mining more centralized. The blocksize has no impact on mining centralization whatsoever. I am not advocating centralizing the nodes either. You are correct in thinking that no solution is ideal which is why I think that increasing the blocksize is the best solution which maximizes decentralization and financial freedom compared to the other alternatives. If Bitcoin does not scale to accommodate a greater amount of transactions directly then this would impact node count as well when compared to allowing increased transactional capacity, since increased adoption would also lead to an increased node count, therefore increasing the blocksize needs to ideally be a balancing act between actual adoption and transaction volume.
Proof by assertion. That you continue repeating your opinions doesn't make them arguments.
I clearly remember discussing
mining centralization with you, where you insisted it's not worsened by larger blocks, because
mining centralization !=
pool centralization, and miners have a choice selecting a pool. Well, in the spherical cows world, I could even agree. In reality, shit gets centralized.
