Quote from: Lauda on September 22, 2016, 11:52:02 AM

Quote from: franky1 on September 22, 2016, 11:48:41 AM

"users" refers to nodes that are not mining. not the physically breathing and eating and pooping human at the computer

That's not the definition of a user. It's one thing to be a user, and another one to be a node operator.

Quote from: franky1 on September 22, 2016, 11:42:12 AM

also its the nodes that do the validating

You don't say?

Quote from: franky1 on September 22, 2016, 11:42:12 AM

wait..
let me guess your subtly hinting that the node decentralization doesnt matter and you think that 6000 nodes is irrelevant and we should just have 1 node?

You've guessed wrong, yet again. If I thought that decentralization didn't matter, then I'd be proposing ridiculous block sizes like those BU lunatics. Roll Eyes

im not talking about node operators (the human) im talking about the demographic/category of nodes.. mining nodes vs user nodes
but atleast now your admitting that the distribution of non-mining nodes has an important job as part of the network.

and it seems you have failed to understand BU.
the 16mb safetly number, is the same as cores 32mb safety number..

then below those safety numbers:
BU has a dynamic mechanism for preferential buffer
core has a fixed preferential buffer of 1mb for 0.12 and 1mb base 4mbweight for 0.13

oops did you forget cores 32mb limit, well then

but have a nice day,

P.S
the 16mb explicit cap and cores 32mb explicit cap. have nothing to do with the preferential blocksizes the consensus should work at, but to do with a secondary safeguard in relation to issues with data packet sizes and other issues regarding the internet as a whole (beyond bitcoins control)

i laugh at your mindset
'big blockers want 2mb' ........ (core wants 4mb)
'big blockers have a secondary barrier of 16mb' (core has 32mb)

easy maths question.
2 and 16.... or 4 and 32. which is perceived as the real big blockers?