One thing i did hear, is that if the block size is bigger, eventually people won't be able to run nodes from their computer because they will need much more power to run nodes, so in this case, the only people who will be able to run nodes are big node farms, so this will kick out the little guys, and then when this happens the nodes will be more centralized,
@bitbee99 this gets said a lot - but you need to put in in perspective. In India there are thousands of tech companies who could run a node with 20MB blocks - with no problem at all. There are an estimated 1,200,000,000 people and 400,000 bitcoin users. there are exactly 7 nodes. The reason people run nodes has nothing to do with block size, it's got to do with the need to run a node. If we keep the block size at 1MB and move fee paying transactions to layer 2 networks, will more people in India need to run a node or less? If more people store more wealth on the bitcoin blockchain will more people want to run a node?
The cost of running a node today is not going to get cheaper yet most internet connections can handle 8MB blocks, Internet users today download 2MB on average per web page. (if you cant can't afford to read 4 web pages in 10 minus - you probably don't need to support the next global financial system)
A data center is a scary though but if I buy an $300 8TB HD today in 10 years time if we grow to 16MB blocks, the disk would still not be full. In ten years time I won't upgrade from a home PC to a data center to prepare for the next 10 years (if I do have too lets grow bitcoin for 10 years then limit the block size)
I don't see why people are not happy with the current bitcoin system
99.999 of bitcoin owners are happy, all holders are for sure. If you want bitcoin to stop growing then put pressure on miners to limit transaction capacity. - most users want a little slice of a gigantic pie. A bigger slice of a small $20,000,000,000 pie is what they have now.
If you want bitcoin to grow and accommodate more users do we need a transaction to be limited to 2000 transactions per 10 minutes?
If we ask why 2000 transactions per 10 minutes, there are no good reasons except the nodes who enforce the rules are enforcing that arbitrary rule. So why not change it?
Nodes have no incentive to change the limit, the more the demand the higher their income. The problem is. 95% of there income is subsidized, the high fees only pay for +- 5% of the transaction cost. This subsidy is by design a random distribution method to help spread bitcoin adoption. Subsidies always distort markets. The bitcoin subsidy does too. It distorts the cost of security, It distorts the cost to transact. (growth requires more transactions and more security.) limiting transaction volume limits subsidized adoption. the subsidy diminished over time - we need to scales of economy to make transaction affordably and maximize security. Is limiting transactions volume the best way to use this distribution subsidy?
don't know why roger ver and that chinese guy want to make their own bitcoin
, it sounds very suspicious
i don;t know much in depth of the technical things of bitcoin, but my gut is telling me to follow what andreas does and not roger ver and the chinese guy
Trace Mayer = supports option 1 below
Roger Ver = supports option 2 below
Andreas Antonopoulos = supports option 3 below.
Don't follow people or code, you have to
do your own critical analysts - bitcoin is a value exchange protocol that is secured by incentives (read the white paper ). the only way to change the rules is for developers to put political pressure on the nodes to change the rules.
the developers are not part of the incentive design - the mining nodes enforce the rules, developers have to convince nodes to change the rules.
the rules that support maximum growth and ensure the incentives support the protocol require removing the transaction limit.
as a user we have a choice:
1) do nothing - bitcoin growth is limited to the equilibrium we have now.
2) Has the majority of miners and community support. (trade off = mining competition increases bitcoin security - bitcoin incentive design is not changed - miners must remove the limit)
3) Has the majority of developers support (trade off = mining competition = Layer 2 growth at the expense of bitcoin security. - bitcoin incentive design must changed - miners must use new code)
2) being the free market position with maximum bitcoin distribution and growth.
3) being the choice for central planers where competition for market share among miners drives growth for layer 2 transaction networks, the difference between 2 and 3 is in 2 mining competition for market share pushing up security what drives new growth where as in 3 mining competition pushes profits to layer 2 networks and there is no positive feedback look for security and growth.
