Quote from: flix on August 19, 2015, 10:15:24 AM

Roger Ver:
Bigger Blocks Mean More Decentralization for Bitcoin
https://www.bitcoin.com/news/bigger-blocks-means-decentralization-bitcoin/

Quote

*Currently a very modest internet connection, available in most of the world, can easily support blocks more than one hundred times what is in use today.

*A $100 USD hard drive would take the better part of a century worth of full blocks to fill up at the current block size limit.

I think he did not calculate that one accurately
We are not just concerned about the size but the speed of the internet connection and geographical regions we may see larger adoption but in areas where the requirements for a speedy connection are met.

On the other hand incentivization to run Bitcoin nodes is non-existent per se besides feeling more secure from online exchange risk and nodes do not it face the issues of miner centralization near cheap electricity so I guess there may be a point for an increased userbase resulting in more nodes but in a capacity that can't really be measured till we start pushing that limit.

(mumble did a speed test on wifi down = 16mbp up = 4.87 mbps)
Plan offers 20-50mbp down 10 up ISP's over advertise compared to actual for local bandwidth purposes but sizing aside not the main issue.

Quote from: flix on August 18, 2015, 02:58:37 PM

MeniRosenfeld
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3h9cq4/its_time_for_a_break_about_the_recent_mess/cu6udfe

The mere act of choosing commits, in my opinion, the logical fallacy of privileging the hypothesis. There are millions of possible approaches, and "someone" out there restricted them to just 2. Most of the decision process (culling from millions to 2) was made for me and I'm left rubber-stamping one of the choices that remain. (See also http://lesswrong.com/lw/mi/stop_voting_for_nincompoops/).
But hey, even a noisy bit contains some information, and the question was asked, so...

A voice of reason in the storm sides with Meni on this.