Quote from: brg444 on October 05, 2015, 10:39:31 PM

Quote from: sidhujag on October 05, 2015, 10:20:47 PM

Quote from: coalitionfor8mb on October 05, 2015, 10:15:11 PM

Quote from: sidhujag on October 05, 2015, 09:35:45 PM

Quote from: brg444 on October 05, 2015, 08:58:01 PM

Quote from: sidhujag on October 05, 2015, 08:52:52 PM

Wouldnt solving the miner anonymity and latency of propagating blocks solve this issue and we can all agree not to increase block size if we understand that bitcoin block mining is a settlement process rather than a real-time payment processor?

Aslong as majority of miner's aren't subjected to regulation (because they are anonymous) and the anonymity doesn't introduce extra lag or that we find a more efficient way to propagate blocks then I think XT will become redundant no? What am I missing here?

Is it about fees? but increasing blocksize will introduce more spam which makes the entire system less efficient?

The concerns are two fold (ranked from my own opinion):

1. Raising cost of entry to become a network peer (running a full node)

2. Mining centralization.

1. Isn't efficiency in storage capacity and bandwidth overcoming the demand for it with our current block structure? With bigger blocks perhaps demand capacity and bandwidth will be higher, but the tradeoff is less fees correct?

The key characteristic here is the ability to keep Bitcoin within the range of technology accessible by majority of Bitcoin users. If Bitcoin demonstrates that its demand for block-space outgrows the capabilities of present day home networks, it may turn into a trend that will be very hard to stop especially if the network loses most of its validating full nodes in the process of such expansion.

The limit on block size is supposed to serve as a "brake" and help reverse this trend backwards for a period of time, so that in the long run the costs of validation oscillate within a certain corridor instead of steadily growing. We can think of it as cycles in nature, where the periods of almost empty blocks (perceived as "large") are followed by the periods of almost full blocks (perceived as "small"), pretty much the same way seasons alternate throughout a year.

Either way we are going to have to solve the core of the problem in either case. I mean Satoshi solves the biggest problem of all and we are left with a measly p2p networking problem which we can't solve on our own collectively? :p

Let's think what would happen if political pressure in most of the world causes internet firewalls to go up in most countries (just as it has in China), if they intentially slow down the net they can kill bitcoin, unless we try to work around it, thus solving issues that large blocks would cause aswell, in terms of network delays. That kills one bird out of 2, and I think we will need to sooner or later.

Right now im leaning on not increasing the block size until the time is right... when is it right? When a 0 fee transaction cannot get included in a block for more than 5 days (current bank wire transfer times). By then hopefully we solve the technical problems and are in need for smaller fees.

Bro, relax.

You've been completely brain fucked by these government agents that somehow a change HAS to happen. To quote davout:

Somehow you imagine that progress is not happening as they have successfully vacuumed all of your attention into this block size debate.

This is called "teaching the controversy" and it is hallmark of statist shill propaganda.

Seeing as you understand well the security aspects that make Bitcoin vulnerable to major infrastructure attack you now need to consider that there is no way to "work around it" as we already have a fix in place: the block size cap. Network delays and propagation can be improved to near-constant rate it wouldn't mean anything since that only opens other attack vectors.

Personally I am unsure and not very confident of the feasibility of zero fee transactions in the future, at least not directly on Bitcoin's blockchain.

Trust is what you pay for when using Bitcoin. As Bitcoin's trust minimization value increases overtime it follows one should expect the cost of using to increase.

Thats true about paying for security but I havent been paying attention to the block size limit until today a few hours ago actually

Well I don't think it will fly UNTIL we have a case where 0 fee tx takes longer than 5 days (for those that are so cheap they have a chance of sending money overseas for 0 fees, but are willing to wait it out). Anyways I do think WE can work around these problems when the time is right.