Quote from: af_newbie on January 16, 2016, 04:00:14 AM

Quote from: AZwarel on January 16, 2016, 03:48:35 AM

Quote from: af_newbie on January 16, 2016, 03:37:58 AM

Quote from: jonald_fyookball on January 16, 2016, 03:16:40 AM

Quote from: af_newbie on January 16, 2016, 03:11:10 AM

Hearn simply does not understand bitcoin.

He thinks it is suppose to be Paypal with super fast transactions.

What's do you mean?

Hearn and Gavin want Bitcon to scale on the main chain,
which is a no-brainer good idea.

It's Greg Maxwell/Blockstream that
want Bitcoin to be a settlement layer.

Why increasing blocksize is a good idea? It will kill decentralization which is already a problem for bitcoin. The chain is already over 60GB.

I'm not sure why they even discuss this, there is no problem. Hearn wants fast transactions, I'm not sure why he even worked on bitcoin, he should have started his own altcoin long time ago. I guess now he will.

You want fast transactions? You pay for it. Problem solved. Next.

The block size growth should be kept below decline of hardware prices. Otherwise you pushing cost of running the network on miners and nodes. Running a node is already a form of taxation. Decentralization is a key feature of bitcoin and it should be protected, IMHO.

That is a non-problem problem. OMG 60GB!! Not like an average - and btw streamed/downloaded - game, or a couple high quality movies don't take the same place. No, people don't have 60 -or 600 - GB to store their MONEY on their 1-2 TB HDDs... Or buy one extra for 100$ to run a node to help the network for thei thousands of dollars of BTCs , or the fact that they can just rent remote nodes for 10$ a month..Much cost, can't do. Also, obviously, all the supposed millions of users running nodes today, (no, they are not), and will not ever if 60GB goes to 600GB.

If you don't see a problem even in a short-term, I just cannot help you. At 20MB/block, you'll be adding 3GB per day. Storage is just one aspect.

Indeed, i do not see a problem. No professional or amateur user/miner should run a node/mining operation, who can not deal with OMG 3GB/day, or download 20MB in a few secs. I download a lot more per day, and have 300MB/s connection for 35 EUR/month. I think most people running nodes have at least 10th of these specifics, and i think 10 millions have better technical availability TODAY over the world right now.

The hardware/bandwith arguments are pure FUD in my opinion, simple statistical facts contradict them. Netflix is streaming HD+ content for millions, so how is a 2-4-20 MB sync/ avg 10 MINUTE is a problem?
Of course, that does not mean, there are not other problems, i give you that, but i refuse to accept the physical limitation fear. Software problems, yes, some.