Dorian knows what's up:
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3nzqqh/hi_rbitcoin_i_am_dorian_nakamoto_ama/cvsyyjgI thought it was a wonderful concept for our global transaction based on fully meshed internet world. Distributed processing vs. centralization. More robust. And the purpose to serve the people even down to the poor rather than the profit base, open source software, ... Best financial invention in this uncertain dollar based or the next exchange based competition.
Note the emphasis against centralisation.
Centralised is the concept that something happens in one location, or is controlled by one entity.
Decentralised means that it is not. So if two nodes are running, its decentralised. Obviously, if 10 nodes are running its *more* decentralised.
What "small blockers against centralisation" crowd seem to want us to believe is that to be decentralised then that means every single one of them has to be abe to run a full node or it doesn't count as *true* decentralisation, and that having bigger blocks means they can't so this. This is blatantly fans in two counts.
Firstly not everyone of them needs to be able to run a node for the network to be counted as decentralised. There just needs to be two or more independent node operators.
Secondly, the idea that it is *impossible* for them to run a node. It's not it s sliding scale of difficulty, based on a whole bunch of variables, many of which are in the uncertain future. So you can't possibly say its impossible.
They are asking us to believe that modify the block size will inevitably lead to the most extreme negative outcome. When in reality they cannot possibly know this. I cannot possibly know that it will not either, let me be clear. What you can do is look at the balance of probability.
Will 8MB blocks right now cause this. Probably not.
Will 8GB blocks right now cause this. Probably.
Nobody is asking for the second case. Furthermore its massively unlikely that raising the limit to 8GB would automatically mean that 8GB blocks start being generated.
It's also quite unlikely that raising the limit to 8MB means that 8MB blocks start being generated, because miner's won't do that, because its not worth their while.
If it was worth their while, and that applied to the majority of miners, then they would probably get together and agree to start accepting bigger blocks anyway, and wouldn't give a damn what core thought.
Thats the reality of it, and thats why I am not particularly worried any more about all this hot air about why the block size limit should remain at 1MB. The people who stand to make/lose the most will do what is needed. They have the power to, and the inclination.
Miners aren't stupid. If they see they can make more money mining huge blocks with loads of transaction fees. They will make it happen.
