Last time i checked, they even encouraged usage of P2P over I2P.
Then it is worth checking.
Topic: Please do not change MAX_BLOCK_SIZE - page 13. (Read 13023 times)
Then it is worth checking.
You can keep only the UTXO set rather than the full blockchain.
Also, I may turn off my miner for profitability reasons, but it doesn't imply that I would not turn it back on at my own loss just to protect my freedom, if it is in real danger.
Yes, but it is not the storage that we are concerned of.Also, I may turn off my miner for profitability reasons, but it doesn't imply that I would not turn it back on at my own loss just to protect my freedom, if it is in real danger.
It's the bandwidth and the computing power - keeping only the UTXO does not change much here.
The USB miner can solve the computing power problem, if people really care a bit about their freedom, they will run the miners when they hardly cost them anything(it's only 2.5W atm), albeit generating negligible revenues, it's up to them.
Bandwidth....well, I suspect it will be dat big a problem, true not everyone will have access to enough bandwidth, but a significant percentage will be, the ISPs could cause some troubles though.
I actually meant it does not change the "core principles of Bitcoin" like block reward.
But it does change the "core principles of Bitcoin" like decentralization of mining nodes. 
I think everyone who is shouting today that we should just increase blocks size, or even allow micro transactions, should commit himself to run a full bitcoin node continuously, for the next 10 years, paying all the costs of it by himself.
People who run a non-mining Bitcoin node are (usually) not out of pocket. Consider that many have a long-term Bitcoin holding, and how well that holding has done in the last year. Isn't it reasonable for owners of full nodes to spend a few bitcoins on upgrades and hardware? If the value of bitcoin continues like it has then anyone with a small holding will be able to afford vast amounts of disk space and bandwidth well before 10 years are up.
It's the bandwidth and the computing power - keeping only the UTXO does not change much here.
Bandwidth is really the only important limitation. That's why the block header change is also proposed. Also, computing power (average CPU speed) is already well above what is required.
. This whole discussion would be meaningless if it wouldn't.Ok sorry - it actually will - my mistake.
I actually meant it does not change the "core principles of Bitcoin" like block reward.
And what is stopping you from using a LITE client over an anonymous connection ? Why the hell do you need a FULL client over TOR for ?
Also, there is a network which can handle such traffic - I2P.
For mining, and I2P is not ready yet.Also, there is a network which can handle such traffic - I2P.
Why exactly is it "not ready yet" ? Last time i checked, they even encouraged usage of P2P over I2P.
And in a maximum of few years time, mining over TOR will be impossible anyway. 6 transactions per second is simply NOT enough for any serious buisness, so the max block size will be increased anyway. The question is not if, but when and how big will it be.
For mining, and I2P is not ready yet.
Out of interest what's your goal here? Do you just want to be able to mine anonymously, or do you want to be able to mine anonymously long-term at a profit?
Changing block size (...) will not create a hard fork.
. This whole discussion would be meaningless if it wouldn't.And what is stopping you from using a LITE client over an anonymous connection ? Why the hell do you need a FULL client over TOR for ?
Also, there is a network which can handle such traffic - I2P.
For mining, and I2P is not ready yet. Also, there is a network which can handle such traffic - I2P.
I think everyone who is shouting today that we should just increase blocks size, or even allow micro transactions, should commit himself to run a full bitcoin node continuously, for the next 10 years, paying all the costs of it by himself.
Yes, I actually plan to do that.
Few terabytes is not a problem and i think that we will have working tree pruning in the next 5 years.
These are just variables. Variables can be changed.
So do you claim that block reward can also be changed? Is it also just a variable.There is a difference.
Change of block reward would create a HARD FORK of Bitcoin. It is the most "sacred" variable of Bitcoin, it cannot be changed without hard forking and disagreement in the community.
Changing block size OR default fee will not create a hard fork.
The only REAL limitation is the speed of the internet connection and TFLOPS of processing power.
And the speed of anonymous internet connection, in case someone want to make bitcoin fully anonymous. And the cost of it.And what is stopping you from using a LITE client over an anonymous connection ? Why the hell do you need a FULL client over TOR for ?
Also, there is a network which can handle such traffic - I2P.
So why the hell people keep shouting "Bitcoin is not designed for microtransactions" ?
Because it's nonsense to store sub dollar tx in thousands of full nodes around the globe and propagate between them. The cost of bandwidth and storage is simply to large to make it economically feasible. We have (or we will have) tree pruning for that. Not everything has to be stored.
And hard drives capacities & internet connections speeds will be improving over the years.
You can keep only the UTXO set rather than the full blockchain.
Also, I may turn off my miner for profitability reasons, but it doesn't imply that I would not turn it back on at my own loss just to protect my freedom, if it is in real danger.
Yes, but it is not the storage that we are concerned of.Also, I may turn off my miner for profitability reasons, but it doesn't imply that I would not turn it back on at my own loss just to protect my freedom, if it is in real danger.
It's the bandwidth and the computing power - keeping only the UTXO does not change much here.
You can keep only the UTXO set rather than the full blockchain.
Also, I may turn off my miner for profitability reasons, but it doesn't imply that I would not turn it back on at my own loss just to protect my freedom, if it is in real danger.
Also, I may turn off my miner for profitability reasons, but it doesn't imply that I would not turn it back on at my own loss just to protect my freedom, if it is in real danger.
I think everyone who is shouting today that we should just increase blocks size, or even allow micro transactions, should commit himself to run a full bitcoin node continuously, for the next 10 years, paying all the costs of it by himself.
Maybe then he would have understood
Maybe then he would have understood
These are just variables. Variables can be changed.
So do you claim that block reward can also be changed? Is it also just a variable?The only REAL limitation is the speed of the internet connection and TFLOPS of processing power.
And the speed of anonymous internet connection, in case someone want to make bitcoin fully anonymous. And the cost of it.So why the hell people keep shouting "Bitcoin is not designed for microtransactions" ?
Because it's nonsense to store sub dollar tx in thousands of full nodes around the globe and propagate between them. The cost of bandwidth and storage is simply to large to make it economically feasible. NOTHING in the Bitcoin protocol design that would not allow microtransactions.
default fee, MAX_BLOCK_SIZE. But it is not designed to be 1MB forever. Still I don't see any reason to make microtx as secure as macrotx. It is not worth to store them in the blockchain.These are just variables. Variables can be changed.
But the CORE Bitcoin protocol allows ANY number of transactions per second. The only REAL limitation is the speed of the internet connection and TFLOPS of processing power.
So why the hell people keep shouting "Bitcoin is not designed for microtransactions" ? This is just a big piece of Über-Bullshit.
NOTHING in the Bitcoin protocol design that would not allow microtransactions.
default fee, MAX_BLOCK_SIZE. But it is not designed to be 1MB forever. Still I don't see any reason to make microtx as secure as macrotx. It is not worth to store them in the blockchain. Bitcoin is not designed for micro-transactions.
Oh my, this is so much of Bullshit.
You actually mean that the current Bitcoin client is not designed for microtransactions.
But future clients may require multiple computers or a cluster to run a single client (like BitsOfProof supernode).
It is entirely possible to write a client which will be able to process 100.000 transactions/second with today's technology and internet connections, so why the stupid "BTC is not designed for micro.... blah blah" talking ?
WTF is wrong with you people. Obviously, Bitcoin IS DESIGNED FOR MICROTRANSACTIONS. There is NOTHING in the Bitcoin protocol design that would not allow microtransactions.
I suggest that if it was 700tps running a full node would be prohibitively expensive ...
Running 700tps would be prohibitively expensive for anonymous node only (my last post). 
For-example, I could make a merge-mined chain that works like Bitcoin, where the value of any coins older 6 weeks is halved. (and forgotten once they get smaller than the smaller unit). New miners would sell these coins, and people could trade over medium time periods. (purchasing and selling this temporary currency for bitcoin). However this is just one option that I made up then. There is a multitude of possible merge-mined coins that could be developed.
Of course anyone can invent any type of coin they want. The question is why would users chose to transact in self destructing money when they could use Bitcoin instead. The answer to this question only makes sense if Bitcoin is artificially restricted so that those users don't have a choice in the matter.They solve different problems. Bitcoin solves the 'low-trust, everyone audits, value transfer.' Open Transaction solves the problem 'anything that is related to something in the world should be able to be traded'.
And you're going to do your best to make make sure Bitcoin stays in that pigeonhole so that it doesn't also solve the problem that makes your pet project valuable. If 99% of the transactions I want to do are priced away from the blockchain by high fees, then I certainly will be switching off my node rather than leaving it running to support fat-cat banksters who are monopolizing the blockchain.
I suggest that if it was 700tps running a full node would be prohibitively expensive, and commonly, only fat-cat banksters would run them.
Not if the lightweight nodes and block header propagation software changes are done.
These are difficult changes, for sure. But if achievable, then all the off-chain, blockchain as backbone solutions become optional. They can succeed on their own merits, not because Bitcoin is crippled to 7tps.
If 99% of the transactions I want to do are priced away from the blockchain by high fees, then I certainly will be switching off my node rather than leaving it running to support fat-cat banksters who are monopolizing the blockchain.
I suggest that if it was 700tps running a full node would be prohibitively expensive, and commonly, only fat-cat banksters would run them.
Jump to: