Quote from: R2D221 on March 13, 2015, 02:59:04 PM

Quote from: iCEBREAKER on March 13, 2015, 08:19:24 AM

Whether the source of blockchain bloat is S.DICE, BitDNS, Counterparty, Blockstream, GavinCoins, or even (gasp!) sustained actual use, the point remains that in reaction to bloat...

Quote from: satoshi on December 10, 2010, 05:29:28 PM

...Bitcoin users might get increasingly tyrannical about limiting the size of the chain so it's easy for lots of users and small devices

So, are you saying you are getting tyrannical because Satoshi said so?

People in this thread have claimed before that taking Satoshi's word as a fact is a fallacy of authority. But you seem to be doing exactly the same with this quote.

Also, I don't see how getting tyrannical about limiting the size will help users with small devices. You can't have a blockchain in your cellphone. That's a fact, a fact that will never change even if you get 1 KB blocks. So what kind of small devices are we talking about here?

No matter the size of the blocks, you will need a properly configured server to run a full node. Most people in the world aren't capable or don't have access to the technology of running a server (as astonishing as it sounds), so limiting the block size so that a fictional set of users who somehow have the resources to run a server, but not enough resources to run it with 20 MB blocks, is nonsensical to me.

Satoshi said "might" not "should." As in 'don't be surprised when' users insist on limiting the size of the chain. I'm simply noting his prescience, not appealing to any authority.

Where his authority matters is when idiots like you "don't see how" Satoshi was right in his expectation/prediction. That's not a fallacy, just an opportunity to laugh at stupidity thrown into high contrast with genius. Cheesy

Full BTC nodes may not need to run on a phone, but there are other blockchains well suited for such pedestrian usage. XCN's mini-blockchain is a prime candidate to dominate an emergent mobile blockchain sector.

The set of users " who somehow have the resources to run a server, but not enough resources to run it with 20 MB blocks" are called Australians, Filipinos, Brazilians and security conscious. Maybe you should try reading the thread and thinking before saying even more ignorant shit:

Quote from: tvbcof on February 09, 2015, 02:35:55 AM

Quote from: $username on February 09, 2015, 01:15:26 AM

Quote from: theymos on February 09, 2015, 12:52:33 AM

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.

If you come within 1/3 (and probably much less) of maxing out your network connection, your ability to run Bitcoin is dependent on the government NOT telling your network providers to interfere with certain kinds of traffic. A chain is only as strong as it's weakest link. If Bitcoin depends on this not happening on a fairly wide scale globally at some point in the future, then it is simply not a very strong solution to me.