Quote from: sickpig on May 27, 2015, 03:08:39 PM

Quote from: satoshi on August 05, 2010, 04:03:21 PM

While I don't think Bitcoin is practical for smaller micropayments right now, it will eventually be as storage and bandwidth costs continue to fall. If Bitcoin catches on on a big scale, it may already be the case by that time. Another way they can become more practical is if I implement client-only mode and the number of network nodes consolidates into a smaller number of professional server farms. Whatever size micropayments you need will eventually be practical. I think in 5 or 10 years, the bandwidth and storage will seem trivial.

Gavin (but no other core dev) and Hearn strenuously believe we are at, or fast approaching, the "eventually" of which Satoshi spoke.

To one degree or another, the rest of the core devs disagree we have arrived or will soon arrive at that eventuality.

Because the trade-offs involved are valued differently by different individuals, at this point no consensus is possible. Thus, status quo prevails.

It's not reasonable to expect Bitcoin to jump directly from 3 tps to tipping economy nirvana.

Of course nobody claims 20mb blocks get us anywhere near Micropaymentopia either. But 20mb blocks aren't just a can-kick band-aid stop-gap, as they threaten the diffuse/defensible/resilient systems which undergrid Bitcoin's antifragility.

2015 is earliest possible date within SN's "5 or 10 years" forecast. What good causes have we to seize upon the most optimistic scenario and proclaim it as factually reasonable?

Shouldn't we at minimum wait until the UXTO problem is optimized to go and press the Turbo button?

Quote from: HeliKopterBen on May 27, 2015, 03:21:04 PM

Quote from: iCEBREAKER on May 27, 2015, 02:13:06 PM

Bitcoin is revolution and financial freedom, not a nifty gadget to put in retail points of sale. If a guy in Venezuala (or Florida) can't be his own private bank by running a full node over TOR on a slow 5mb DSL line, this experiment has failed.

The experiment will likely fail if it the network is NOT upgraded and the limit eventually removed. The limit has already been reached anyway.

Running a full client is ALREADY too resource-intensive for average Joe. The blockchain.info model is better suited for average Joe. That model has proven to solve the problem of trust in an environment where trust has been violated a majority of the time. Average Joe will be his own bank with a simple web interface where he has full control over his keys.

Who mentioned "average Joe?" Not me.

But I disagree that Average Joe cannot run a full node with a laptop, some extra RAM, and an average DSL. Average Joe is very clever when his life savings is at stake, and his pocket is being picked by price inflation and ZIRP/NIRP.

Do you consider LukeJr an "average Joe?" I don't. If LukeJr can't run a full 20mb node in Florida, just imagine how many other lesser beings would be excluded.

The struggling Argentinian/Venezuelan/Cypriot/Ukrainian/Syrian is closer to "average Joe" but they find themselves in extraordinary (IE non-average) economic and political circumstances, which require them to run full nodes as a lifeline instead of a mere hobby.