Quote from: R2D221 on March 09, 2015, 07:56:58 PM

Quote from: danielpbarron on March 09, 2015, 07:08:37 PM

Quote from: R2D221 on March 09, 2015, 07:00:41 PM

Quote from: danielpbarron on January 31, 2015, 07:16:10 PM

Quote from: Mircea Popescu http://trilema.com/2015/third-pass-addressing-the-more-common-pseudo-arguments-raised-by-the-very-stupid-people-that-like-the-gavin-scamcoin-proposal/

XII. The current 1Mb limit is arbitrary. We want to change it. Please ignore the fact that the discussion is about whether to change or not to change, and please ignore that the onus is on whoever proposes change to justify it. Instead, buy into our pretense that the discussion is about "which arbitrary value". Because we're idiots, and so should be you!

Go away.

Yes. Go away is a perfectly reasonable argument.

Considering what it's in response to, yes.

Read the text in bold and you will see why there is no more valid an argument than to say "scram!"

Go away is NEVER a valid argument. It's just dismissing what the other side is saying without actually discussing the issue.

The text in bold, if used as a serious argument, should always be dismissed without discussion; it is an inherently moot point.

Quote from: R2D221 on March 09, 2015, 07:59:10 PM

Quote from: danielpbarron on March 09, 2015, 07:08:37 PM

I would bet that most people on this forum already use an "offchain" solution, in that they do not maintain their own full node.

SPV wallets are not off-chain, yet they don't have a full node.

Quote from: danielpbarron on March 09, 2015, 07:08:37 PM

If you're using a website or an app to manage your funds, you won't notice the difference when your transactions aren't individually sent on the blockchain, but instead bundled up with all the other petty transactions and sent at the end of the day/week.

But what if I don't? What if I use an SPV wallet that needs access to the blockchain to work?

Such a "wallet" might as well be "offchain." If you're using a "thin client" without connecting to your own full node, you might as well just go offchain completely. You're already trusting a 3rd party to give you an accurate representation of the blockchain in such a situation; it makes little difference to also trust them to settle the transaction in large bundles between other full node operators.

Quote from: Arghhh on March 09, 2015, 08:34:29 PM

In other words, R2D221, the 1MB'ers solution to the blocksize limit is to funnel all the peasants into centralized, off-chain solutions.

Anyone can run a 1MB node, but can everyone use a 1MB block?

It is pointless to have your petty transaction recorded in the blockchain if you aren't going to keep a copy of it on your own machine. Bitcoin isn't magic. It means nothing to have your transaction in a block if you can't actually verify that the block is valid, and you can't make such a verification if you aren't keeping a full record of all past blocks. I make no attempt to cover up the fact that most people ~~should~~ ~~will be~~ are peasants who will need to rely on lords to relay their transactions for them. That reality isn't a threat to sound money; it is a threat to your pipe dreams of socialism and equality for all. The 20MB plan is a threat to sound money because it will necessarily reduce the number of full nodes on the network, thereby making seizure by the enemy a trivial pursuit. Consider for example, the "liberty dollar" which for the sake of argument had only one "full node." It was easily defeated by confiscation of the single point of failure.

To summarize for those of you with attention spans no longer than what can fit as bold text on an image:

Larger blocks cause the problem they are intended to solve.