Quote from: Iranus on July 13, 2017, 08:32:10 PM

Quote from: hv_ on July 13, 2017, 07:40:29 PM

Quote from: Iranus on July 13, 2017, 06:54:15 PM

Quote from: hv_ on July 13, 2017, 05:08:42 PM

Any idea what kinda node this little Swiss private bank will gonna run? Rasp PI Huh

Banks should not be the only people running nodes.

Quote from: hv_ on July 13, 2017, 05:08:42 PM

Do you really beleive Laudi has any idea about that at all or is payd for telling the FUD?

Quote from Lauda just three posts before yours:

Quote from: Lauda on July 13, 2017, 04:34:49 PM

It is of utmost importance to keep the cost of running nodes as low as possible. However, this does not mean that we should force a system which must work on a raspberry fee (which is often what another type of cancerous idiots tend to exaggerate with).

Please read the thread before posting.

Quote from: franky1 on July 13, 2017, 06:25:42 AM

"bitcoin should not grow because americans might need to pay 3 hours of minimum wage labour more PER MONTH to use it
but dont worry about tx fee, just pay more, it doesnt matter if cuba, india, africa have to pay 40 hours of labour PER TX!"

Transaction fees should be approximately 20 cents right now. 40 satoshi/byte or sometimes even less is good enough when the network isn't undergoing a spam attack.

In my view, there's a fine balance. The first step should be offchain scaling or alterations of onchain transactions like SegWit - the second step should be onchain scaling, when there's no other clear options available. The bigger the max block size, the more space that's open for long-term spamming and eventually node centralisation.

Read before posting.

Where is written 'only banks' ?

OK, fair point. However, poorly interpreting (or being hyperbolic about) your wording is not the same as actually lying and acting like Lauda said the exact opposite of what they did.

Quote from: hv_ on July 13, 2017, 07:40:29 PM

Once you could point me to, pls explain why you want people do the txs rather off-chain than onchain? Since this will be the result of your order, correct?

Offchain first. It doesn't mean people should do all of their transactions offchain, it just means that for microtransactions offchain transactions are necessary, and that it's important to be as efficient as possible before raising the block size.

It was never actually practical to walk into a coffee shop and do a zero-confirmation transaction. You can either do that zero-confirmation and have the merchant risk not getting their money, or you can stand there saying "hang on, just a few minutes", until your transaction gets confirmed. That's the scenario that needs offchain transactions.

Quote from: hv_ on July 13, 2017, 07:40:29 PM

And if you got that, than tell us, how far is that away, from moving people into alts directly?

Not at all comparable to altcoins, nor is raising the block size through a hard fork IMO.

Quote from: hv_ on July 13, 2017, 07:40:29 PM

Last, what do you think is more expensive, spamming 1MB blocks or 2MB blocks up to the limit?

It's the same cost to spam the same amount of space. Neither SegWit nor block size increases would actually mitigate spam very well. If they wanted to fill the whole block I recognise that it would be more expensive, but it's still not very expensive to do that.

The point is that a higher block size means there's more space in which it's possible for someone to spam and put strain on node users.

Ok. No of your points is addressing the risk of SW and compares it with simple BS increase.

All efforts you do is more off chain ( first...). This will change code, design AND Nash equilibrium ( discussed in the ck's SW2x thread).

Are you still just fear the HF ? Or now rather fear the other 3 more realistic risks I outlined?

My point is clear. Do only such changes if you really understand all impacts. SW changes just too much and bitcoin network is too complex.

So do little BS increases and see. HF is well known to cryptoland.