"TOR" is shorthand for low-bandwidth connections, whether privacy-enhanced darkweb internets-within-the-internet or plain old slow DSL.
You need to keep up. This has already addressed here:
I view this as paranoia. While you and tvbcof are using lots of services outside of TOR
you don't want to use Bitcoin outside of TOR. Why don't you try to impose TOR on all websites if we are at this subject? Only limit only to Bitcoin? Why should the network comply with
your view and fears? Why don't you let the network decide this as it should happen?
Concern for low-bandwidth DSL and hardened TOR-like connections wasn't limited to tvbcof and myself.
It was also voiced by TF and Theymos. Why did you edit that part out?
Here it is again, with red bolding to help you learn. Perhaps this time you'll be able to read, and maybe even respond, with on-point arguments rather than personal attacks like accusations of "paranoia."
Exactly what block size the network can support is very much debatable. I currently think that 10 MB would be fine and 50 MB would be too much, though these are mostly just feelings. There should be more rigorous study of the actual limits of the network. (Gavin's done some nice work on the software/hardware front, though I'm still worried about the capabilities of typical Internet connections, and especially how they'll increase over time.)
Exactly.
30 kBps upload is common in Australia, and you sure should be able to run a full node in a typical internet connection in Australia, or Brazil, or Philippines, or whatever. The block size needs to be useful for the (lowest reasonable) common denominator, not the median.IMO 10 MB is too much, maybe 5 MB.
youre missing the whole argument ,every bitcoin user in brazil ,phiilipines or australia doesnt have to run a full node
i visit a lot of countries around the world and some of them have suprisingly fast internet