Quote from: MyBTT on September 22, 2016, 09:47:56 PM

Quote from: zimmah on September 22, 2016, 09:33:10 PM

Quote from: illyiller on September 22, 2016, 09:02:44 PM

I don't think it has anything to do with being a "rich guy's club." Being able to run a node shouldn't be a "rich guy's club" either. And though mining already is, do we want to exacerbate that? Maxblocksize is very much about preventing the externalities that limit node/miner participation into more and more centralized groups.

I think "artificial limit" implies a misconception. Bitcoin as a system was a matter of designing a system that optimally aligns market incentives to ensure a decentralized, secure network. We cannot have talk about an "artificial limit" without mention that this limit is specifically designed to ensure decentralization and security---the former by maximizing the ability to run nodes and participate in mining, and the latter by forcing users to pay some of the cost of confirmed transactions, rather than externalizing all costs onto nodes and miners (forcing some off the network). I take exception when people try to make this about "free markets vs. central planning."

Bitcoin was centrally planned from Day 1; the entire point is trying to design the optimal system, with regard for all of its parts. The point wasn't to disregard most of the system so we can guarantee cheap/free transactions for users.

blocksize doesn't affect miners as much as nodes. Miners who can afford to mine in this market can afford to have bigger blocks too, because blocksize is limited by nodes, not miners.

Just that miners will have to receive more than 4mb of transactions before they can start mining. Tongue

Which is not a problem at all, download speed of miners is not a bottleneck, and you need huge amounts of money to even be competitive in the mining industry in the first place so they can all afford internet. You don't even need fast internet in the first place. But even if they would, they could afford it. It will not at all increase centralization.

Quote from: MyBTT on September 22, 2016, 09:47:56 PM

Quote from: zimmah on September 22, 2016, 09:33:10 PM

And 98% of nodes right now can support 4MB blocks without a problem.

And the nodes that can't, really shouldn't be on the network. We don't want weak links in the chain.

You'll never reach 100%, 98% is more than acceptable.

Not upgrading hurts more people than upgrading. In the longer term, more people will run nodes (because there will be more adopters), so the weak nodes will be replaced.
And the nodes that can't, really shouldn't be on the network. We don't want weak links in the chain.