Quote from: franky1 on May 13, 2017, 09:11:43 PM

Quote from: BillyBobZorton on May 13, 2017, 05:09:05 PM

Fact: If you raise the blocksize up to a point where people can't run their own nodes, you cannot call it a peer to peer network anymore.

get the "gigabytes by midnight" script out of your head. the rises of blocksize can grow at a natural progressive rate that nodes can cope with.
core already admit 8mb is safe..
with all the code efficiencies since 2009 (libsecp256k1=5x efficient for instance),
the fact that we are not average homeline of 512mbit/s(38mbyte/10min) ADSL, but alot more as an average now
the fact that hard drives ar cheaper
the fact that the baseline raspberry Pi is now raspberrypi3

all show that 8mb is safe and admitted as such, but even so just going to 4mb is also ok. with a few tweaks ONTOP to further becoming extra safe such as limiting txsigops to 4k per tx or less forever...
all would show that there is nothing technically hindering the ability to run a full node at home

Quote from: BillyBobZorton on May 13, 2017, 05:09:05 PM

No amount of tricks can overcome the importance of a full validating node, so forget about SPV. The moment people can't have full validating nodes the whole concept of "peer to peer cash" it's game over.

and i now hope you see why the whole filters(gmaxbuzz) bridging(lukeJrbuzz) to create a cesspit of a TIER network by going soft is something i have hate of.

And 8MB is shit compared to mainstream payment transactors. You will never achieve mainstream adoption onchain.

8MB right now is not safe, it's too much, nodes will drop likes flies. Im dumping my node for sure at 8MB.

Quote from: Heruur on May 13, 2017, 05:14:45 PM

Quote from: Nagadota on May 13, 2017, 01:55:02 PM

The Lightning Network can take a huge amount of transactions largely offchain. The idea of having all transactions fully onchain is not a matter of principle, it's a matter of control from miners so that they can receive transaction fees more often. SegWit allows a slight increase in onchain capacity which is enough for the short term while this offchain scaling can also be implemented.

You're wrong because off-chain transactions are against the nature of Bitcoin and Satoshi vision. All transactions must be ON CHAIN due to many reasons, technology is not in cause here. The decentralization model should also be for Core Dev we have to rethink the process of BIP proposal and reward Dev for it.

For exemple Bitgo Instant is great tool and might be considerated as Off-chain transactions network. You don't need a solution On the network but Off the network it's called business man

Satoshi's vision was "peer to peer cash". How can you call "peer to peer cash" something that is peer to corporation running nodes to corporation running miners to peer, peer to peer cash? Get real.

Quote from: dinofelis on May 14, 2017, 05:05:30 AM

Quote from: cellard on May 13, 2017, 02:04:48 PM

How do you maintain the promise of so called "peer to peer cash" to scale globally without centralizing the network due huge blocks that people cannot afford to run at home, therefore not anymore peer to peer cash but peer to corporation to peer transaction? (aka what we have already in the current baking system)

I'm amazed that this point is repeated over and over, and I've been arguing, demonstrating, proving.... that there's no *power* to be had in running a full node that is not a mining node. There is *information* to be had when running a full node: indeed, if you want to *verify yourself* what the system is doing *but without any means to act on it*, you can run a full node. But that's informational, and is not a matter of power.

I'm amazed that people always put forward the "decentralization aspect" of full nodes, while Satoshi himself explained from the very beginning:
1) that the consensus system is Proof of Work, especially to avoid "proof of node" simply because that would be open to Sybil attacks, and as such, nullifying the decision power of non-mining full nodes ON PURPOSE. PoW was introduced exactly for that !
2) that if the block chain becomes very succesfull, only people mining new coins need to run a full node, and that other users can use their light wallets to connect to them.

So, concerning the decentralization of bitcoins consensus mechanism, there's absolutely no use for non-mining full nodes. As an individual power user, you may want to check for yourself whether bitcoin is still working how they told you it was working, and invest in a full node - but the only thing you will get out of that is *information* ; you cannot INFLUENCE bitcoin that way.

I've argued this very logical point, nobody has ever countered it, and it is fairly obvious from the writings of its creator that non-mining full nodes have no consensus power at all.

In other words, your permissionlessness, and your ability to transact peer-to-peer are totally INDEPENDENT of whether there are a lot of non-mining full nodes or not, because ALL THAT is decided by the consensus of miners. The protocol they agreed upon to build the block chain, is the de facto protocol of bitcoin, and they decide if they include your transaction or not. You don't need full nodes to transmit them your transaction: if you connect DIRECTLY to their nodes, they will get it. And that was how bitcoin was designed ! Consensus is decided by those who deliver proof of work and explicitly NOT by the number of full nodes.

It is rather strange that one argues that the peer-to-peer ability to pay is compromised because Joe cannot run his full node in his basement any more (while this node never intervened in any consensus decision). but that the peer-to-peer ability would NOT be compromised by needing a lot of hubs in the LN network to agree to your transaction: hubs to which you are TIED with a payment channel which you cannot settle easily (as per definition that the on chain system is "compromised" and doesn't have, per design, the capacity for you to easily settle). Being forced off-chain looks to me like a much higher danger to the peer-to-peer permissionlessness of transactions, than having to rely on the consensus of Proof-of-work providers only.

The current, actual reality is that all of bitcoins' consensus, including the protocol, the permission to transact, the fees, and everything, are the consensus that happens between about 20 entities, the pools, that together, have more than 99% of the decision power (PoW) under their control. The consensus that emerges between these 20 entities is what we call "bitcoin", and bitcoin was designed to be like that.

Wrong:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fNk7nYxTOyQ