the 1MB limit will centralize bitcoin - page 4.

brg444

hero member

Activity: 644

Merit: 504

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks

Quote from: adamstgBit on September 10, 2015, 04:11:29 PM

Quote from: brg444 on September 10, 2015, 03:58:03 PM

Quote from: adamstgBit on September 10, 2015, 03:55:47 PM

Quote from: adamstgBit on September 10, 2015, 03:37:30 PM

Quote from: knight22 on September 10, 2015, 03:33:43 PM

Quote from: brg444 on September 10, 2015, 03:29:51 PM

Quote from: uxgpf on September 10, 2015, 03:24:41 PM

If the economy and number of users grows, then I would suppose there will also be more people in whose best interest is to keep the network running.

Having an interest is not enough. We need to guarantee the ability for the common man to do so.

The free market will solve your problem because there is an incentive. https://bitseed.org

look at that brg444, look at it closely its cost 160$, and i bet you we can get this sexy piece of shit to handle 4K TPS ( might need a HD upgrade tho)

it might be challenging to get this very minimal computer to process 4KTPS
but it would serve as a good benchmark as to what we would limit the requirement for a full node to be.

Quote

To improve Decentralization, make full nodes cheaper.

http://www.truthcoin.info/blog/measuring-decentralization/

at 160$ the cost of the machine is negligible and in most cases 0 because the user already has a computer 5X more powerful.
the bandwidth it would use is the costly part.
unlimited bandwidth plan would be required.

Sure, not a problem if you live in Montreal. If you live in China, India or other third world countries then you're just screwed I guess, too bad for you right Huh

adamstgBit

legendary

Activity: 1904

Merit: 1037

Trusted Bitcoiner

Quote from: brg444 on September 10, 2015, 03:58:03 PM

Quote from: adamstgBit on September 10, 2015, 03:55:47 PM

Quote from: adamstgBit on September 10, 2015, 03:37:30 PM

Quote from: knight22 on September 10, 2015, 03:33:43 PM

Quote from: brg444 on September 10, 2015, 03:29:51 PM

Quote from: uxgpf on September 10, 2015, 03:24:41 PM

If the economy and number of users grows, then I would suppose there will also be more people in whose best interest is to keep the network running.

Having an interest is not enough. We need to guarantee the ability for the common man to do so.

The free market will solve your problem because there is an incentive. https://bitseed.org

look at that brg444, look at it closely its cost 160$, and i bet you we can get this sexy piece of shit to handle 4K TPS ( might need a HD upgrade tho)

it might be challenging to get this very minimal computer to process 4KTPS
but it would serve as a good benchmark as to what we would limit the requirement for a full node to be.

Quote

To improve Decentralization, make full nodes cheaper.

http://www.truthcoin.info/blog/measuring-decentralization/

at 160$ the cost of the machine is negligible and in most cases 0 because the user already has a computer 5X more powerful.
the bandwidth it would use is the costly part.
unlimited bandwidth plan would be required.

brg444

hero member

Activity: 644

Merit: 504

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks

Quote from: adamstgBit on September 10, 2015, 03:55:47 PM

Quote from: adamstgBit on September 10, 2015, 03:37:30 PM

Quote from: knight22 on September 10, 2015, 03:33:43 PM

Quote from: brg444 on September 10, 2015, 03:29:51 PM

Quote from: uxgpf on September 10, 2015, 03:24:41 PM

If the economy and number of users grows, then I would suppose there will also be more people in whose best interest is to keep the network running.

Having an interest is not enough. We need to guarantee the ability for the common man to do so.

The free market will solve your problem because there is an incentive. https://bitseed.org

look at that brg444, look at it closely its cost 160$, and i bet you we can get this sexy piece of shit to handle 4K TPS ( might need a HD upgrade tho)

it might be challenging to get this very minimal computer to process 4KTPS
but it would serve as a good benchmark as to what we would limit the requirement for a full node to be.

Quote

To improve Decentralization, make full nodes cheaper.

http://www.truthcoin.info/blog/measuring-decentralization/

adamstgBit

legendary

Activity: 1904

Merit: 1037

Trusted Bitcoiner

Quote from: adamstgBit on September 10, 2015, 03:37:30 PM

Quote from: knight22 on September 10, 2015, 03:33:43 PM

Quote from: brg444 on September 10, 2015, 03:29:51 PM

Quote from: uxgpf on September 10, 2015, 03:24:41 PM

If the economy and number of users grows, then I would suppose there will also be more people in whose best interest is to keep the network running.

Having an interest is not enough. We need to guarantee the ability for the common man to do so.

The free market will solve your problem because there is an incentive. https://bitseed.org

look at that brg444, look at it closely its cost 160$, and i bet you we can get this sexy piece of shit to handle 4K TPS ( might need a HD upgrade tho)

it might be challenging to get this very minimal computer to process 4KTPS
but it would serve as a good benchmark as to what we would limit the requirement for a full node to be.

adamstgBit

legendary

Activity: 1904

Merit: 1037

Trusted Bitcoiner

Quote from: knight22 on September 10, 2015, 03:33:43 PM

Quote from: brg444 on September 10, 2015, 03:29:51 PM

Quote from: uxgpf on September 10, 2015, 03:24:41 PM

If the economy and number of users grows, then I would suppose there will also be more people in whose best interest is to keep the network running.

Having an interest is not enough. We need to guarantee the ability for the common man to do so.

The free market will solve your problem because there is an incentive. https://bitseed.org

look at that brg444, look at it closely its cost 160$, and i bet you we can get this sexy piece of shit to handle 4K TPS ( might need a HD upgrade tho)

knight22

legendary

Activity: 1372

Merit: 1000

--------------->¿?

Quote from: brg444 on September 10, 2015, 03:34:50 PM

Quote from: knight22 on September 10, 2015, 03:33:43 PM

Quote from: brg444 on September 10, 2015, 03:29:51 PM

Quote from: uxgpf on September 10, 2015, 03:24:41 PM

If the economy and number of users grows, then I would suppose there will also be more people in whose best interest is to keep the network running.

Having an interest is not enough. We need to guarantee the ability for the common man to do so.

The free market will solve your problem because there is an incentive. https://bitseed.org

Do you imagine these will remain accessible if you get your bloatchain?

Yes because there is an incentive.

brg444

hero member

Activity: 644

Merit: 504

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks

Quote from: knight22 on September 10, 2015, 03:33:43 PM

Quote from: brg444 on September 10, 2015, 03:29:51 PM

Quote from: uxgpf on September 10, 2015, 03:24:41 PM

If the economy and number of users grows, then I would suppose there will also be more people in whose best interest is to keep the network running.

Having an interest is not enough. We need to guarantee the ability for the common man to do so.

The free market will solve your problem because there is an incentive. https://bitseed.org

Do you imagine these will remain accessible if you get your bloatchain?

knight22

legendary

Activity: 1372

Merit: 1000

--------------->¿?

Quote from: brg444 on September 10, 2015, 03:29:51 PM

Quote from: uxgpf on September 10, 2015, 03:24:41 PM

If the economy and number of users grows, then I would suppose there will also be more people in whose best interest is to keep the network running.

Having an interest is not enough. We need to guarantee the ability for the common man to do so.

The free market will solve your problem because there is an incentive. https://bitseed.org

uxgpf

newbie

Activity: 42

Merit: 0

Quote from: brg444 on September 10, 2015, 03:23:55 PM

Because it's cumbersome and not practical.

Maybe you skipped over "commoditization"?

Once it becomes trivial to run one then certainly more people will be willing to do so.

I think the main reason why more people aren't running nodes is because they have no incentive for it, not because they wouldn't have resources to do so.

Nodes are mainly run by parties who have much at stake or simply volunteers willing to help.

brg444

hero member

Activity: 644

Merit: 504

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks

Quote from: adamstgBit on September 10, 2015, 03:29:10 PM

Quote from: spazzdla on September 10, 2015, 03:25:52 PM

Quote from: adamstgBit on September 10, 2015, 12:26:47 PM

Quote from: CIYAM on September 10, 2015, 12:22:52 PM

Well Satoshi himself had stated that the vast majority of people would only run SPV nodes anyway so I'm not quite sure what point you are really making.

Obviously the bigger the block size limit the less likely that any home nodes will be full ones.

sure thing, but also,
the higher the fees the less likely a home user will run a full node.
why run a full node on a network you can't afford to transact on?

It won't be that expensive,
You would use the BTC network to store A LOT of value as you know it's security is out of this world.

You would use.. dogecoin or something as a spending currency.

right users would go to some other coin for day to day TX's
day to day they would run the dogecoin full node, if any full node.
further centralizing bitcoin nodes.
the 1MB limit will centralize bitcoin!
Cheesy

Using another coin is a stupid idea.

People will use payment channels. In fact I am confident enough that in 5 to 10 years mostly every mainstream usage of Bitcoin will be done through payment channels.

brg444

hero member

Activity: 644

Merit: 504

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks

Quote from: uxgpf on September 10, 2015, 03:24:41 PM

If the economy and number of users grows, then I would suppose there will also be more people in whose best interest is to keep the network running.

Having an interest is not enough. We need to guarantee the ability for the common man to do so.

adamstgBit

legendary

Activity: 1904

Merit: 1037

Trusted Bitcoiner

Quote from: spazzdla on September 10, 2015, 03:25:52 PM

Quote from: adamstgBit on September 10, 2015, 12:26:47 PM

Quote from: CIYAM on September 10, 2015, 12:22:52 PM

Well Satoshi himself had stated that the vast majority of people would only run SPV nodes anyway so I'm not quite sure what point you are really making.

Obviously the bigger the block size limit the less likely that any home nodes will be full ones.

sure thing, but also,
the higher the fees the less likely a home user will run a full node.
why run a full node on a network you can't afford to transact on?

It won't be that expensive,
You would use the BTC network to store A LOT of value as you know it's security is out of this world.

You would use.. dogecoin or something as a spending currency.

right users would go to some other coin for day to day TX's
day to day they would run the dogecoin full node, if any full node.
further centralizing bitcoin nodes.
the 1MB limit will centralize bitcoin!
Cheesy

brg444

hero member

Activity: 644

Merit: 504

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks

Quote from: adamstgBit on September 10, 2015, 03:20:42 PM

you trolls are very demanding

  1000's of nodes != decentralized
  >1MB blocks is to much for a typical user to handle
  fees need to increase for miners to make enough to secure the network

all these statement are ivory tower thoughts, and you use this line of reasoning to make good discussions seem ridiculous

  how many nodes do we really need?
  what can a typical user be expected to handle?
  what is the right balance between more centralization and high TPS?

Do you understand what a p2p network is?

In Bitcoin if you don't run a node then you are not a peer. If you are not a peer then you need to trust one to use the system. Don't you think that kind of goes against the point of using Bitcoin?

In a perfect scenario everyone should have access to a node if they need so. I'm not suggesting they will need it for each and everyone of their transactions but if push comes to shove it is necessary that a user has the opportunity to manage his wealth trusting no one.

spazzdla

legendary

Activity: 1722

Merit: 1000

Quote from: adamstgBit on September 10, 2015, 12:26:47 PM

Quote from: CIYAM on September 10, 2015, 12:22:52 PM

Well Satoshi himself had stated that the vast majority of people would only run SPV nodes anyway so I'm not quite sure what point you are really making.

Obviously the bigger the block size limit the less likely that any home nodes will be full ones.

sure thing, but also,
the higher the fees the less likely a home user will run a full node.
why run a full node on a network you can't afford to transact on?

It won't be that expensive,
You would use the BTC network to store A LOT of value as you know it's security is out of this world.

You would use.. dogecoin or something as a spending currency.

uxgpf

newbie

Activity: 42

Merit: 0

If the economy and number of users grows, then I would suppose there will also be more people in whose best interest is to keep the network running.

brg444

hero member

Activity: 644

Merit: 504

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks

Quote from: ?? on ??

Quote from: brg444 on September 10, 2015, 01:25:45 PM

Secure: an ultra conservative block size allows the number of independent nodes in the system to grow infinitely, considerably increasing the strength and decentralization of the network. it enables possibilities like the commoditization of hardware such as the existing Bitnodes (https://getaddr.bitnodes.io/hardware/)

We have a 1MB limit right now. So why is almost nobody running a full node?

Maybe nobody wants to run a full node even thought it's possible. Theoretical decentralization doesn't help anyone.

Because it's cumbersome and not practical.

Maybe you skipped over "commoditization"?

Once it becomes trivial to run one then certainly more people will be willing to do so.

adamstgBit

legendary

Activity: 1904

Merit: 1037

Trusted Bitcoiner

you trolls are very demanding

  1000's of nodes != decentralized
  >1MB blocks is to much for a typical user to handle
  fees need to increase for miners to make enough to secure the network

all these statement are ivory tower thoughts, and you use this line of reasoning to make good discussions seem ridiculous

  how many nodes do we really need?
  what can a typical user be expected to handle?
  what is the right balance between more centralization and high TPS?

brg444

hero member

Activity: 644

Merit: 504

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks

Quote from: adamstgBit on September 10, 2015, 03:13:38 PM

Quote from: brg444 on September 10, 2015, 03:08:13 PM

Quote from: uxgpf on September 10, 2015, 03:05:37 PM

Quote from: CIYAM on September 10, 2015, 02:10:21 PM

Quote from: adamstgBit on September 10, 2015, 02:09:20 PM

and simply want to say that if bitcoin grew 1000X over night, a typical home computer can STILL handle the fucking traffic

You are simply wrong - this isn't going to happen and if it grew by that amount then most will stop running it.

I have already stopped running it because of where I live (and I would like to run a full node).

So if someone with advanced computing skills has "given up" then why on earth would you think that anyone with less skills would keep doing that (seeing their computer getting CPU and I/O bound).

I am not sure what sort of "super home computer" you are running but when I run Bitcoin on my laptop it basically stops working properly.

Maybe something is wrong with your laptop or maybe great firewall prevents you from syncing? (I presume you live in china)
Mine runs fully validating node just all right.
MY CPU Usage is at 6% and upload and download usage is mostly under 10kB/s, which is tiny fraction of my bandwidth.

I have even relatively slow connection by local standards 50/10Mb. Currently where I live you can get 100/100 Mb for roughly 19,90€/month and I wouldn't be surprised if in 5-10 years that is 1Gb/s. There's millions of people with such home connections and only few thousand need to run full nodes.

How did you come up with this number?

What if the US outlaw Bitcoin and prosecute anyone running nodes then I guess as it stands the rest of the network is in pretty bad shape heh?

if the US outlaw Bitcoin and prosecute anyone running nodes, i dont care if you had a million nodes or 1000 nodes b4 this event, nodes would drop the same exact level ( i'm guessing there are about 50 crazies willing to run nodes given this sanario )

you do realize other parts of the world can run nodes as well. the point was that "a few thousand" can be attacked if Bitcoin is big enough that it becomes a danger for nation states.

adamstgBit

legendary

Activity: 1904

Merit: 1037

Trusted Bitcoiner

Quote from: brg444 on September 10, 2015, 03:08:13 PM

Quote from: uxgpf on September 10, 2015, 03:05:37 PM

Quote from: CIYAM on September 10, 2015, 02:10:21 PM

Quote from: adamstgBit on September 10, 2015, 02:09:20 PM

and simply want to say that if bitcoin grew 1000X over night, a typical home computer can STILL handle the fucking traffic

You are simply wrong - this isn't going to happen and if it grew by that amount then most will stop running it.

I have already stopped running it because of where I live (and I would like to run a full node).

So if someone with advanced computing skills has "given up" then why on earth would you think that anyone with less skills would keep doing that (seeing their computer getting CPU and I/O bound).

I am not sure what sort of "super home computer" you are running but when I run Bitcoin on my laptop it basically stops working properly.

Maybe something is wrong with your laptop or maybe great firewall prevents you from syncing? (I presume you live in china)
Mine runs fully validating node just all right.
MY CPU Usage is at 6% and upload and download usage is mostly under 10kB/s, which is tiny fraction of my bandwidth.

I have even relatively slow connection by local standards 50/10Mb. Currently where I live you can get 100/100 Mb for roughly 19,90€/month and I wouldn't be surprised if in 5-10 years that is 1Gb/s. There's millions of people with such home connections and only few thousand need to run full nodes.

How did you come up with this number?

What if the US outlaw Bitcoin and prosecute anyone running nodes then I guess as it stands the rest of the network is in pretty bad shape heh?

if the US outlaw Bitcoin and prosecute anyone running nodes, i dont care if you had a million nodes or 1000 nodes b4 this event, nodes would drop the same exact level ( i'm guessing there are about 50 crazies willing to run nodes given this sanario )

brg444

hero member

Activity: 644

Merit: 504

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks

Quote from: uxgpf on September 10, 2015, 03:05:37 PM

Quote from: CIYAM on September 10, 2015, 02:10:21 PM

Quote from: adamstgBit on September 10, 2015, 02:09:20 PM

and simply want to say that if bitcoin grew 1000X over night, a typical home computer can STILL handle the fucking traffic

You are simply wrong - this isn't going to happen and if it grew by that amount then most will stop running it.

I have already stopped running it because of where I live (and I would like to run a full node).

So if someone with advanced computing skills has "given up" then why on earth would you think that anyone with less skills would keep doing that (seeing their computer getting CPU and I/O bound).

I am not sure what sort of "super home computer" you are running but when I run Bitcoin on my laptop it basically stops working properly.

Maybe something is wrong with your laptop or maybe great firewall prevents you from syncing? (I presume you live in china)
Mine runs fully validating node just all right.
MY CPU Usage is at 6% and upload and download usage is mostly under 10kB/s, which is tiny fraction of my bandwidth.

I have even relatively slow connection by local standards 50/10Mb. Currently where I live you can get 100/100 Mb for roughly 19,90€/month and I wouldn't be surprised if in 5-10 years that is 1Gb/s. There's millions of people with such home connections and only few thousand need to run full nodes.

How did you come up with this number?

What if the US outlaw Bitcoin and prosecute anyone running nodes then I guess as it stands the rest of the network is in pretty bad shape heh?

Topic: the 1MB limit will centralize bitcoin - page 4. (Read 3647 times)