Re: Analysis and list of top big blocks shills (XT #REKT ignorers)

Quote from: Lauda on January 28, 2016, 03:56:02 PM

Quote from: ATguy on January 28, 2016, 03:47:19 PM

Because not all blocks can be full, we are looking for 0.5 TB in next 6 years when users will probably have 10-100 TB HDDs in 6 years. If someone really think a bit technically about it and dont spread the FUD about decentralization and how Bitcoin cant scale anyway with onchain transanctions, he would come to conclusion let scale onchain transanctions as much as possible to still keep decentralization - 0.5 TB HDD storage in next 6 years will not break decentralization, even 1TB or 2 TB in next 6 years will not break decentralization either

This is "FUD". You're working under the assumption that: 1. The block size will remain at 2 MB for 6 years (while saying that 1 MB hurts adoption). 2. The HDD capacity is going to increase tenfold in 6 years? 3. This doesn't hurt decentralization. You obviously are not thinking properly because there are a lot of factors to consider.
What about new nodes? Good luck catching up with a 0.63 TB network on a raspberry PI. This is something that can not be left out (among other things). In other words, this does hurt decentralization and that is a fact. The question is just how much and is it negligible?

To be clear I do not think we should restrict the throughput of the network so that people can continue to run full nodes on raspberry PI's. I do not think this was ever the intention for Bitcoin either. It is true that there is a balancing act here, and that decentralization is effected in different ways. However everything considered I think that increasing the blocksize will be better for decentralization overall compared to leaving it at one megabyte.