Quote from: thezerg on July 14, 2015, 03:03:23 AM

Quote from: iCEBREAKER on July 13, 2015, 10:10:32 PM

Quote from: Odalv on July 13, 2015, 09:07:58 PM

Quote from: thezerg on July 13, 2015, 12:06:42 AM

I support Satoshi's ideas.

I have never heard that Satoshi propose exponential growth of block. (doubling size every 2 years)

Satoshi would never trade trustlessness and resiliency for efficiency and adoption.

Quote

Bitcoin users might get increasingly tyrannical about limiting the size of the chain so it's easy for lots of users and small devices. - Satoshi Nakamoto 2010

Did you read the posting right above mine? Its completely clear that he supported the idea that as the network grows the full nodes would need to be dedicated servers and most users would use SPV. This is what you guys are calling "centralization". But its really not, because it remains permissionless. That's the most important thing, because if you don't like the full node choices you could always get a few people together and rent your own.

Additionally, the node centralization fear is simply stupid because we've already lost the fight. Miners have 99% of the power in the Bitcoin network and they are much more centralized than full nodes. You're closing the barn door after the cows have already gotten out!

@odalv: AFAIK Satoshi didn't say anything about whether increases should be pre-baked in or not. But regardless I think the blocksize increase crowd would compromise on a static but significant (8MB or greater) increase.

Most folks won't take an appeal to authority argument very seriously, but for those that might, it merits pointing out that it is not entirely clear that this means that node quantities should be expected to decline, or just that SPV users should increase at a much greater pace percentagewise.