Quote from: Lauda on March 23, 2016, 08:38:20 PM

Quote from: adamstgBit on March 23, 2016, 08:33:51 PM

segwit increases full node requirements just as much as 2MB blocks.
if you believe 2MB blocks will lead to node centralization, then you should come to the same conclusion with segwit.

'Just as much'? No. The problem with a dangerous TX that could take too long to process is not inherent to Segwit. Additionally, it is worth to say that 2 MB block size limit has positive effects that Segwit does not (i.e. Segwit comes with a few).

hmm we'd have to confirm that... but notwithstanding this attack
there will be twice as many TX included pre block, requiring nodes to process relay and store twice as many TX, just as if we had simply increased block size.

Quote from: Lauda on March 23, 2016, 08:38:20 PM

Quote from: adamstgBit on March 23, 2016, 08:33:51 PM

removing the ability to create a full node on a free AWS server should not be seen as a bad thing.

It is a paid Sybil attack.

but its cheap like dirt! ( is some cases Free ... )
maybe, it would be OK to increase node requirement such that its no longer cheap like dirt to do a Sybil attack.
by keeping requirement low we are opening an attack vector, and allowing the voice of nodes that matter to be downed out by 1000's "fake" nodes.

more is not always better?

IMO way too much emphasis has been placed on keeping node requirement low. and to ill effect, 1000's of classic node flood the network at the click of a button...