Quote from: franky1 on May 04, 2016, 05:22:00 PM

Quote from: Lauda on May 04, 2016, 04:46:48 PM

Quote from: akumaburn on May 04, 2016, 04:40:17 PM

The potential for abuse without a block-size limit is too high, if the block size limit is removed, then it will be the end of all chains that adopted the removal.

Correct.

numpties!

even with the 1mb still in place this summer.. segwit allows for upto 1.8mb of data (think about it a hard rule saying 1mb is the limit being abused to actually allow 1.8mb).. then comes confidential payment codes which combined allow over 2.5mb of data whilst the blocksize limit is still set to 1mb..

can anyone see the hypocracy of the blockstreamers yet..

2.5mb of their features (meaning you have to use their software and the different signing algorithm) all for what.. well it definetly wont be 2.5x current capacity. infact its more like 1.8x capacity.

then in 2017 they will finally give in to moving the coded block limit to 2mb.. but with their features it will be REAL data of over 5mb.
so we ask will this 5mb be 5x todays capacity??
nope.

will it be 4x todays capacity..
nope

it will be 3.6x todays capacity..

so next time a block streamer tells you that right now 2mb is bad because the network cannot cope. ask them these questions.

1. ignoring the light, pruned, no witness fluff.. concentrating on a true full relay, full archival node how much REAL data is being pushed when segwit and confidential payment codes is released.

2. is allowing people to be blindly told that running pruned, light, no witness mode is no threat/harm, knowing that they are not true full nodes?

3. knowing the answers to 1 and 2. how can blockstreamers really argue the data propogation debate and the full node count dilution debate, the capacity per mb debate... and still think that blockstreams roadmap is better then other simpler solutions

Right now, the network bandwidth can handle a 5MB block every 10 minutes without cutting off major portions of the world from being able to run full nodes(feasibly- ie: without saturating their pipes). This basically amounts to an ISDN or higher connection. This in itself is reasonable.

The additional problem with increasing the block size to 5MB (or anything substantially large for that matter) is that then some clever exploiters (mining farms mainly), may spam the network with cheap transactions in order to pad the blocks to their maximum size, which would then pose a problem for casual computer's storage, which may centralize the network to those particular farms, which then gives them the ability to dictate the chain's direction.

I'm all for a 2-4MB block size for bitcoin though.. At the very least it'd be a stop gap measure for the current transaction volume issues.