[jgord]

Its a commonly voiced, but false dichotomy - increasing blocksize 4x or even 8x will have negligible impact on the security or decentrality of Bitcoin.

It will just allow more transactions through, which will allow fees to fall to levels where normal people can use it for normal transactions.

The use of bitcoin as a currency is being throttled by the artificially small blocksize.

We can have more than 3 transactions per second, while still maintaining the fundamental properties that are Bitcoin.

Hopefully SegWit2X will be the sane compromise everyone hopes for - ie. that we see the bottleneck alleviated with segwit and 1MB blocksize contributing to a near 4x improvement in transaction throughput, and lower usage fees.

[Frogolocalypse]

> increasing blocksize 4x or even 8x will have negligible impact on the security or decentrality of Bitcoin.

Incorrect. It will make running a full node for almost all consumers in Australia impossible at any price.

> hopefully SegWit2X will be the sane compromise

Segwit is the compromise and we are finally going to get it. If you want to install the 2x hard-fork to china-coin, you are welcome to. Everyone else will just continue using bitcoin. Now with segwit.

[CyberDildonics]

You've made a lot of assertions like this but you aren't backing them up with any numbers.

8MB every 10 minutes is 13KB/s. Do Australians not look at youtube either, because when I was there well over a decade ago it worked pretty well. Even a full node syncing multiple people -while the blocks are full at 8MB- is no problem. Also there are many orders of magnitude left before running a full node exceeds the capacity of a $15/month VPS and many orders of magnitude before a person at home could no longer sync with a full node off a basic internet connection. That is also ignoring the fact that most people don't need or want to sync with the full chain, but to be clear, hundreds of millions can and would still be able to.

I see arguments like this from time to time, usually from the same small group of people, but there is nothing but crickets when I show them basic numbers and ask for how they came to this conclusion.

[Frogolocalypse]

Here's the source of the justification of my opinion :

https://iancoleman.github.io/blocksize/#_

Where's yours?

The issue is the upload bandwidth requirement, which demonstrates that your understanding of the constraint, with your comparison to YouTube, is completely incorrect. And centralizing of all of these nodes onto service provider infrastructure is the worst possible example of decentralization, which is what we're talking about in the first place.

What I've found in the past is the people who hold your views are only cursorily aware of the constraints of decentralization, and use unrelated justifications in order to hand wave away problems. Thankfully, the people who actually secure bitcoin, through their use of nodes, spend more time to understand how bitcoin works, and have repeatedly rejected 'solutions' that will reduce the security of the network.

But you can now prove me wrong! Instead of using bitcoin, use bitcoin cash. If what you say is true, it will be valued significantly higher than bitcoin. If it stops you trying to break bitcoin, even better.

[CyberDildonics]

> with your comparison to YouTube, is completely incorrect

Not for syncing. For running a full node, a VPS costing $12 - $15 USD per month has orders of magnitude more bandwidth. I already have you the math of full 8MB blocks, there is no way you can say that these aren't trivial bandwidth numbers.

> What I've found in the past is the people who hold your views are only cursorily aware of the constraints of decentralization, and use unrelated justifications in order to hand wave away problems.

That's big talk when:

1. You are talking about bandwidth and the numbers are simple to calculate and come out to trivial amounts.

2. Bitcoin is literally working right now with 0 hiccups except for full blocks and high fees. The people working on it right now didn't do that, they kicked out the people who did.

3. You say hand waving while not backing up a single thing you've said or confronting what I've said. 8MB block when 100% full takes 13KB/s to sync. Is that wrong? Twitch streams are 250KB/s. Most people don't even want to or need to sync.

> But you can now prove me wrong! Instead of using bitcoin, use bitcoin cash.

This is about how ridiculous the 1MB limitation is, you can try to divert from that, but lets see you confront it.

[Frogolocalypse]

> For running a full node, a VPS costing $12 - $15 USD

So your solution to centralization pressures is to use a centralized service for decentralization?

> You are talking about bandwidth and the numbers are simple to calculate and come out to trivial amounts.

I provided more evidence on the bandwidth requirements than your incomplete understanding of how bitcoin works multiplied by your flawed opinion.

> 2. Bitcoin is literally working right now with 0 hiccups except for full blocks and high fees.

No-one is forcing you to use it. There are a multitude of other options if you feel that bitcoin isn't meeting your use-case.

> You say hand waving while not backing up a single thing you've said

I provided evidence that backed up my opinion. You should try it.

> This is about how ridiculous the 1MB limitation is, you can try to divert from that, but lets see you confront it.

Nah. You can use another service if you feel that the 10's of thousands of nodes somehow don't have a better understanding of the constraints of running a node than you. No-one is holding a gun to your head. Ever heard of Bitcoin Cash? Perhaps that might better suit your needs.

[CyberDildonics]

> I provided more evidence on the bandwidth requirements than your incomplete understanding of how bitcoin works multiplied by your flawed opinion.

No, you didn't. You didn't confront my numbers for syncing, you for some reason think the option to pay for a cheap VPS to run a node is centralization. You also seem to that a single node is uploading to 8 people at all times, no more, no less not to mention that your assertion revolves around thinking that 48KB/s to run a full node is a lot when hundreds of millions of people can do that now with their home internet connections, not to mention buisnesses. Kids are running around streaming live video from their phones, how can you cling to such nonsense and why won't you confront it directly?

> No-one is forcing you to use it. There are a multitude of other options if you feel that bitcoin isn't meeting your use-case.

So instead of confronting these absurd statements, you say 'then don't use it'. This is about whether what you are saying makes sense and so far I haven't seen anything more than trying to avoid the simple numbers that make the answer obvious.

> I provided evidence that backed up my opinion. You should try it.

I'm not really sure what you want or how you can say that. I've broken down the numbers for you in terms of bandwidth, people that have access to that bandwidth, previously running systems, and widespread use cases of other technology that already uses more resources.

> Nah. You can use another service if you feel that the 10's of thousands of nodes somehow don't have a better understanding of the constraints of running a node than you. No-one is holding a gun to your head. Ever heard of Bitcoin Cash? Perhaps that might better suit your needs.

So anyone who can do simple math and questions bizarre statements should 'go somewhere else' ?