Quote from: franky1 on February 11, 2016, 02:19:14 AM

Quote from: madjules007 on February 11, 2016, 01:40:52 AM

That doesn't prove that use of SPV/web wallets is causing the decline in nodes. It only proves that more people are using blockchain.info than in the past, which you would expect if bitcoin is increasing in adoption. The number of blockchain.info wallet users is also not an accurate representation of the bitcoin economy.

put some numbers into some scenarios. charts, hypothesis. instead of instantly debunking it because it doesnt fit your mindset.
blockchain.info was just one example. theres coinbase user statistics too. and multibit download stats. all of which can be compared to core downloads and node counts.

This has nothing to do with my mindset; it's about the limits of the data you're pointing to. None of this would prove that use of SPV/web wallets is causing the decline in nodes. It would only prove that more people are using blockchain.info, Coinbase and Multibit than in the past, which you would expect if bitcoin is increasing in adoption.

The growth in SPV/web wallets compared to Core isn't going to explain much here. One might expect use of SPV/web wallets to grow faster than the use of full nodes as bitcoin becomes more mainstream. That doesn't explain why the number of full nodes is steadily falling...over a period when block size has been steadily increasing.

Quote from: franky1 on February 11, 2016, 02:19:14 AM

then when you link up all the users that there are. and put them against stats that only 288,000 transactions a day are currently happening. then you will see that people are not spending coins multiple times a day. but maybe once a week.

this is usually the order(priority first) of normal peoples rational thinking when looking after their finances
1. ease of use
2. security of holdings
3. using a self sustaining store that cannot fail..

for instance. many people prefer a bank account that allows them free 24/7 access to their funds with a swipe of a card far before thinking of putting it in a secure bank account that needs a signed check, that only operates 9-5. and far far before worrying about the banking institution as a whole and wanting to put funds into something decentralised and eternally self sustaining(gold).

and so. most people with < 1btc OR who dont spend daily, and mostly holding for 6+ months. dont care much about being a node. they will just sweep there privkeys into a web wallet and move funds out when the time comes. they basically have no reason to run a node.

those who have >$1000 would want a decentralised solution but if they are not spending daily. they see no need to run a node. so they would choose multibit or electrum as a bit more security.

those who have >$1000 and do spend daily would be more tempted to run a full node.

I respect that you are attempting to form an explanation for the perpetual decline in nodes that is specifically not bandwidth-related. But none of this sounds reasonable, or backable by statistics or logic. If certain groups don't care about running a node, as you say, how does that explain the persistent downward trend in nodes over years? It doesn't. Blockchain.info and SPV wallets like Electrum have been around since 2011.

Quote from: franky1 on February 11, 2016, 02:19:14 AM

so now that you know that bandwidth is not really an issue(previous posts).

None of this establishes that bandwidth is not an issue. At all.

Quote from: franky1 on February 11, 2016, 02:19:14 AM

the key to increasing nodes is not just getting more people adopting bitcoin.. because an increase of hoarder of bitcoin has proven to not help the node could.

How could you prove this? Logically, hoarders have an incentive to keep the system robust and decentralized -- i.e. running a node, even if not transacting.

Quote from: franky1 on February 11, 2016, 02:19:14 AM

but instead making bitcoin more useful. so that if people are spending funds more than once a week they have more reason to be a node. not just for security. but also the utility of it. also ensuring you segwit fanboys inform the community the importance of being full archival nodes and stop saying that compatible mode (no witness) is fine. aswell as not messing with the TX fee because that is also a buzzkill for usability

Bitcoin is already useful. It's a decentralized, permissionless way to store and transfer value. Buzzkill or not, decentralization is paramount to low fees. But fear not, this is no doomsday situation. In addition to segwit:

Quote from: madjules007 on February 10, 2016, 10:48:01 PM

I said that bitcoin has capacity limitations that are linked to bandwidth limitations for individual nodes. Further optimizations like IBLTs and weak blocks could greatly mitigate those limitations (and over time, infrastructural limits to upload bandwidth should improve as well).

Quote

IBLTs and weak blocks: 90% or more reduction in critical bandwidth to relay blocks created by miners who want their blocks to propagate quickly with a modest increase in total bandwidth, bringing many of the benefits of the Bitcoin Relay Network to all full nodes. This improvement is accomplished by spreading bandwidth usage out over time for full nodes, which means IBLT and weak blocks may allow for safer future increases to the max block size.

Once we mitigate these bandwidth limitations, increasing the block size limit stops looking so dangerous.

So stop making it out like this is a doomsday situation, Franky.