Quote from: garytheasshole on November 08, 2017, 10:45:10 PM

Quote from: fuddy on November 08, 2017, 10:24:31 PM

Quote from: Roidz92 on November 08, 2017, 09:58:50 PM

ok, i thought it was a serious discussion ahha

i hold big on btx, but i would like to know the answers. Always better to find first the negative sides than the positive when you invest Grin

Waiting for someone that answer at this " larger blocks means bigger blockchain, that means less nodes, that means less security"

Larger blocks don't mean necessary a "much" larger blockchain. The thing taking moste space in the blockchain are the transactions and therefore the hashes.
There are many pros and cons on this matter and I'm not going to lay them all out for you. Read yourself:
https://www.google.de/search?q=why+no+bigger+blocksize&rlz=1C1CHBF_deDE769DE770&oq=why+no+bigger+blocksize&aqs=chrome..69i57.4718j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
IMHO short: Bigger blocksizes like 20MB are worth it because atm there's just no other option (at least basing on bitcoins blockchain design) to handle enough transactions to compete with anything near RL Use Cases regarding # of transactions per time.

Your point is pointless, you "need" larger blocks to process more transactions, if you have 20MB blocks but only 50 kbytes of transactions per block your 20MB block size is useless, but sure the block chain wont be any bigger than if you had 50 kbytes blocks. It is a block size LIMIT and if you never even come near the limit the limit is pointless.

Why shouldn't you come near this limit. The # of transactions per timeframe calculates out of block size (# of possible transactions fitting into a block) and block time. If you want really to get anywhere near the transaction speed of let's say credit cards, what must be a goal if you wanna come anywhere to real value as a usable currency, with the bitcoin blockchain model there's no way around bigger blocks. Are you really arguing "If you don't need the capabilities ATM, it's pointless to have them?" That makes no sense. Especially as long as you are not filling the blocks there's no difference and while bitcoin is creating with larger workloads a backlog and a transaction fee race bitcore can just handle the load. Bandwith and storage for such capable nodes shouldn't be a problem nowadays. Do you think s.o. who can handle 10GB of a blockchain can't handle 100GB or 1TB? The bitcoin blockchain is also growing only at a slower speed. If you need more transactions you always have to store them anyways, bitcoin is only doing this much slower.
What I wanted to say, the factor being signifcant for blockchain growth is the # of transaction per timeframe. The block size is only limiting the speed this can happen.

There are other implications of bigger blocks, but afaik they are not really a problem. The other two fields are consensus and the need to make a hard fork and therefore no way to come to a real fix new number. Hard fork and agreement don't matter because bitcore starts from scratch. Consensus and security is really arguable, but that's imho a question of what you're favoring.

Any other solution would require off-chain constructs. Like payment providers to condense small transactions off the chain and bring only the sum of many condensed transactions back on the chain. But that's, from my view, the same problem as raising the hardware demands of a full node by increasing the "speed" of the blockchain. By raising the requirements for a full node the network tends to centralize. Off-chain transaction lead to the same.
In a really long term perspective only other blockchain/storage (lower storage requirements, lower the ressources needed for consensus...) and consensus models make sense. I don't think the bitcoin style blockchain like bitcore is going to survive the next ten years, but that's just a wild guess.