Quote from: BitUsher on December 31, 2015, 05:43:55 PM

Since the scaling discussion is rolling over here, I would like everyone to consider this data -

Quote from: BitUsher on December 31, 2015, 05:08:06 PM

Quote from: jbreher on December 31, 2015, 04:51:55 PM

Quote from: johnyj on December 31, 2015, 04:13:04 PM

But simulation by bitfury already indicated that we will have a severe performance problem with 4MB blocks on average home computer

I'd like to see that report. Got a link?

With only several thousand running full nodes now, it seems to me that 'average home computer' is not the limiting issue.

This is the data you are looking for -
https://rusty.ozlabs.org/?p=522

here is the simulation test code-
https://gist.github.com/rustyrussell/9c3c4bf3127419bd3f1d

This is an example of a tx that can push validation times to their limit and potentially crash nodes--

https://www.blocktrail.com/BTC/tx/bb41a757f405890fb0f5856228e23b715702d714d59bf2b1feb70d8b2b4e3e08

There are solutions to this problem and principally why core devs want to roll these out first ... before increasing the blocksize limit on the main tree.

I'll reply back on the thread that you're porting this from (when I get back there). Suffice to say that I believe that market forces can solve this (non)problem without centralized command and control from the Core devs.

As just one tangential observation, I note that my rather modest node seems to have encountered no issue in swallowing up the referenced block 364292.