Quote from: onemorexmr on August 28, 2015, 12:21:16 AM

Quote from: brg444 on August 28, 2015, 12:13:56 AM

Quote from: onemorexmr on August 27, 2015, 11:54:28 PM

the blocksize debate is going on for years now. many people think it shouldnt change even if transaction backlog starts to grow. and now you are telling me that its just fear mongering when i say its nearly impossible to change the bitcoin protocol? c'mon...

i didnt say that the whole world will adopt bitcoin tomorrow. i think its just shortsighted to think an algorithm would work.

and "cross the bridge when we come to it": well you want to change a p2p system without warning its users beforehand? a protocol change needs time... if the utxo is 1gb its too late Wink

The more important point here is that to prepare Bitcoin to handle the transactions needed in the event of adoption on the scale you propose we'd pretty much have to lift the limit entirely.

I think I have demonstrated in the previous post why that is not quite an option.

you have demonstrated that bitcoin is doomed to get centralized even with 1mb blocks.
we already see the first signs - even with a huge blockreward.

i told you the only solution i see (home mining): which has nothing to do with blocksize.

Mining centralization is somewhat of a mixed bag. While it will happen given the inherent economies of scale the most important thing is that we have a strong and diversified network of nodes who can put a check on these miners. That's essentially what they're for.

Without a blocksize you pretty much leave the nodes to the mercy of miners.