I didn't want to wade through 19 pages of text and I know this has been answered before, but why would it be a bad idea to integrate this into the P2P network on a bilateral basis? Wouldn't it still help a bit?

You can't check signatures against arbitrary data. Blockstream has a new opcode CHECKSIGFROMSTACK that allows it in Elements alpha, and that might find its way into Core reasonably soon.

I like Adam Back's 2-4-8 proposal better, as it provides a gradual transition. Note that Bitfury's support for BIP 100 was based on their assessment that increasing the limit to 8MB right now is too fast. Mark Friedenbach has also warned that while 8MB is likely safe with current networking hardware, it hasn't been sufficiently tested.

I wouldn't mind accelerating Adam's schedule so that 8MB is reached in 3 years, not 6.

So what incentive do you have in mind?

It's not completely pointless at all! If sufficiently many users are willing to run a microminer at a small monetary loss, then it becomes practically impossible to run a commercial mining farm. I think we're quite far away from that scenario, but it's a theoretical possibility. I hope that eventually a hundred million people will care enough about decentralisation, and in that case it might happen.

Then we should have multiple much smaller increases. Start with BIP102, then commit to yearly evaluations of whether it is technically safe and economically necessary to increase the block size limit. Each year the limit could be doubled or kept the same.

Counting the number of full blocks in a row is a bit restrictive. Why not look at something like what percentage of all blocks in a month was full?

My purely personal opinion: 50% per year is way too much, and there needs to be a sunset clause. It's very difficult to foresee how fast bandwidth will grow more than five years out and we also don't know what bandwidth is safe as a percentage of average domestic bandwidth or median domestic bandwidth or whatever.

I think you'll easily get a consensus based on actual, realised bandwidth data supplied by reliable sources combined with observation of the network to see if there is any evidence of either increased centralisation or of the limit hampering growth.

Clearly the point of owning a 21-enabled device is not to make money mining, as several others have already pointed out. The idea is that at a sufficiently low power draw people might not object to the miner being there, provided the device offers enough value for money in other departments. The trick is to find an application that is synergistic with Bitcoin mining.

How about this, a device that combines the following features:

- Full Bitcoin node like Bitnodes Hardware.
- Tor router like Portal to provide high anonymity with fewer possibilities for exploits than running Tor on your own computer. Mainly interesting for those who have political motivations or are doing naughty things, but also a noble-sounding pretext ("helping dissidents in Iran").
- I2P router that does something similar for bandwidth-intensive applications that do not need to leave the darknet, such as file sharing or naughty Streamium streams that could benefit from increased privacy for both sender and receiver. Potentially attractive to a much larger group of people.
- Meshnet router.
- Access point for selling bandwidth to strangers with phones with expensive data bundles using Bitcoin micropayments channels, as proposed by Mike Hearn.

There is synergy between several of these functions.

For example, if you want to sell bandwidth and want to avoid liability for what people are doing over your connection, Tor helps. Paid applications that rely on stealth Bitcoin micropayments would benefit from decentralisation and might be more willing to contribute financially, especially if it costs very little. People running such a node could still be seeking a profit, such as getting paid anonymously for hosting files. The mining costs could then be seen as an expense and overall the operation could still be profitable.

Making an interactive tool out of this could be very useful, because then it could be interesting to anyone who played with it. It will remain somewhat subjective, but at least it could inject some rational analysis into the debate, and has the potential to make some people change / refine their opinions.

The problem is the risk of a disastrous split, not a general principle that everyone should agree for all time. Regardless of which side wins, the split itself may be disastrous for both sides.

Bumping this as it seems relevant to the current discussion about a block size increase.

The website has listed okcoin as ignored because of a 0% fee model, but it isn't ignored at all, it is currently listed as the number 2 usd exchange, at 24% of volume. What's up with that?

That's good news! As for funding, have you considered using Lighthouse?

Any updates on this?

What's the Bitfury news in Finland? I heard about their plans to buy Allied Control, but nothing specifically about Finland.

Volume is still showing as 0, even though they are back online.

That's true, but you don't need to mine if you want to speculate and you don't need to speculate if you want to mine. They're really two independent processes.

Bitcoin mining isn't doomed at all, but lots of small players will be driven out of the market.

Once the global hashrate stabilises, there might be a limited short-term stabilising effect. A temporary drop in price would cause marginal miners to switch off, temporarily slowing down bitcoin production. This would of course lead to an adjustment, but adjustments deal with current production, they do not try to force cumulative production to a pre-set time schedule. Similarly, a temporary rise would cause new hardware to be switched on. This limited stabilisation shouldn't affect long term trends, but it might reduce intraday volatility.