lesson one
dont read anything on reddit. either r/btc or r/bitcoin.. they both have propaganda

lesson two
4mbit/s vs 8mbyte/10minute are not a battle... 4mbit/s= 300mbyte every 10 minutes
(4mbit=0.5mbyte/sec... * 60 = 30mbyte/min..... *10 = 300mbyte/10min)

lesson three
dynamics is not about "gigabytes by midnight" propaganda. its about the nodes voting for what they find achievable. if they dont like a certain limit, they broadcast it, and pools wont just leap to huge numbers, they will take rational and small incremental steps because they will see what the nodes ar happy with.. not just because of network capability but also to mitigate any risks.. such as the berkeley>leveldb bug core had when they went passed 0.5mb. so pools will dip thier toes in slightly higher incremental amounts each time and see what is capable and safe.

lesson four
and this is done by full network consent . and not any dev team decision/control to jump through hoops. meaning NODES decide what is good for the network based on what NODES know is good for the network. not some dev team with propaganda stats. but real functionality capability.

lesson five
its much like the old rule of 1mb and pools incremented from 0.25 up, over 8 years.. same applies again but with a higher max limit and then incremental adjustments BELOW that. which is not 100% pool deciding. but nodes get to show what is preferable too.

lesson six
imagine it like a 3 legged race.
one half think they should walk at 1mph and the other person jog at 8mph.. <-propaganda
or
they both agree that 8mph is the maximum but agree to start at 2mph and then increase it by x% until they start not being able to stay in sync and then stick at that medium level until they are fitter to try higher jog rate than before.

I did, but I also read other sources, I try to be objective. I see that the Unlimited team is not malicious as others claim to be, they just think that their version is better. I just disagree, that is all.





I have 4 mb/s (megabyte as in 1024*1024 bytes)

The global average in the western world is like 1.5 mb or 2 mb.

In the USA the internet is very slow, it's something like 1 mbs, and the new ISP's like Google Fiber that offer speedy internet..... Well it's Google, should we be surprized about their evil business tactics:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_by_Google

---

So the Net Neutrality is a real problem. It's not just the blockchain that takes 8mb/ 10 minutes, a node has other bandwidth costs too, it has to communicate with other nodes, and sync. So the bandwidth cost of a full node is already pretty large, with 8mb/s it would be way larger.

And I would easily see ISP's censoring those nodes, especially if the banksters ask them nicely,after all the entire corporate system is tied in.

---

But even if you ignore Net Neutrality, and the bandwidth problem, which you shouldn't. The hardfork can still be an issue.

You say that a hardfork should only be done with maximum consensus. Ok I agree.

But that consensus might take years to build up, maybe 5-10 years, and by then the bandwidth problem will be solved mostly.

So we might as well just be better off with the status quo for now. So in the meantime we just activate Segwit and remain cautious and conservative.

Being conservative with Bitcoin is the only way to ensure it's safety and stability longterm. If you want low fees, use any altcoin you like, bitcoin is a reserve currency, that has to be handled very delicately.

lol seems you have sucked into "that mentality"

probably time to get ur dictionary out and read "conservative"
1.adverse to change/innovation
2.favouring free enterprise

meaning hand it to corporations. "just pay more" avoid innovation and let the rich own it

...
also i know that the 300mbyte per average blocktime, which you have capacity for is not just filled with that 1 blocks data. but other data too such as multiple connections and also tx's and other handshaking stuff.. but do the maths and learn 6th degree of separation.

its also worth you realising it wont even be "8mb by midnight". even if the max was 8mb.. it will take months/ years to even get to that level
internet providers have a 5 year plan for fibre and 5g. we are not stuck at 2000 with 0.5mbit internet. we are not stuck at 2009 5mbit internet
.. just do the maths and stop taking reddit scripts for granted

not everyone needs to be a "supernode" of 80+ connections. some can be just have 6-10 connections and still see that 8mb is safe (infact more than 8mb is safe)
4mb is anal, 2mb is super anal, and those wanting to stick with 1mb are super anal constipated

"Blocks should be allowed to get as big as they can get", said Satoshi Nakamoto

As far as I am concerned, the below communication from Satoshi himself, ends the debate. Whoever thinks they are smarter than Satoshi can go build their own blockchain.

Can someone explain to me why there is any debate when Nakamoto himself said:

---------------------
Quote from Mike Hearn:

https://bt.irlbtc.com/view/149668.msg1596879#msg1596879
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=%22Bitcoin+can+already+scale+much+larger+than+that+with+existing+hardware+for+a+fraction+of+the+cost.%22

Satoshi did plan for Bitcoin to compete with PayPal/Visa in traffic volumes.
The block size limit was a quick safety hack that was always meant to be removed.
In fact, in the very first email he sent me back in April 2009, he said this:

--------------------------------------------------
Email from Satoshi Nakamoto to Mike Hearn:

"Hi Mike,
I'm glad to answer any questions you have. If I get time, I ought to write a FAQ to supplement the paper.
There is only one global chain.

The existing Visa credit card network processes about 15 million Internet purchases per day worldwide. Bitcoin can already scale much larger than that with existing hardware for a fraction of the cost. It never really hits a scale ceiling. If you're interested, I can go over the ways it would cope with extreme size.  By Moore's Law, we can expect hardware speed to be 10 times faster in 5 years and 100 times faster in 10. Even if Bitcoin grows at crazy adoption rates, I think computer speeds will stay ahead of the number of transactions.

I don't anticipate that fees will be needed anytime soon, but if it becomes too burdensome to run a node, it is possible to run a node that only processes transactions that include a transaction fee. The owner of the node would decide the minimum fee they'll accept. Right now, such a node would get nothing, because nobody includes a fee, but if enough nodes did that, then users would get faster acceptance if they include a fee, or slower if they don't. The fee the market would settle on should be minimal. If a node requires a higher fee, that node would be passing up all transactions with lower fees. It could do more volume and probably make more money by processing as many paying transactions as it can. The transition is not controlled by some human in charge of the system though, just individuals reacting on their own to market forces.

Eventually, most nodes may be run by specialists with multiple GPU cards. For now, it's nice that anyone with a PC can play without worrying about what video card they have, and hopefully it'll stay that way for a while. More computers are shipping with fairly decent GPUs these days, so maybe later we'll transition to that."

~ Satoshi Nakamoto
---------------------------------------
Quote:

"Satoshi said back in 2010 that he intended larger block sizes to be phased in with some simple if (height > flag_day) type logic, theymos has linked to the thread before. I think he would be really amazed at how much debate this thing has become. He never attributed much weight to it, it just didn't seem important to him. And yes, obviously, given the massive forum dramas that have resulted it'd have been nice if he had made the size limit floating from the start like he did with difficulty. However, he didn't and now we have to manage the transition."

~ Mike Hearn, on bitcointalk.org, March 07, 2013, 06:15:30 PM

https://bt.irlbtc.com/view/1347.msg15366#msg15366
bit.ly/1YqiV41

----------------------------------------
Quote from Satoshi:

It can be phased in, like:

if (blocknumber > 115000)
    maxblocksize = largerlimit

It can start being in versions way ahead, so by the time it reaches that block number and goes into effect, the older versions that don't have it are already obsolete.  When we're near the cutoff block number, I can put an alert to old versions to make sure they know they have to upgrade.

~ Satoshi Nakamoto, on bitcointalk.org, October 04, 2010, 07:48:40 PM

----------------------------------------
----------------------------------------
----------------------------------------

So now,

If Satoshi himself "never really gave block size limit much weight"  (he assumed scaling was an obvious need that would happen quickly and easily), why are a group of developers refusing to scale the protocol... while simultaneously creating a tool that will generate massive income by moving transactions off the block chain, and into their exclusive transaction processing system (Lightening Network)?  Is it any wonder they were given nearly $50 million in VC funding when VC's realized they just took over Bitcoin transaction processing?

Is this not blatantly changing the design and purpose Satoshi gave to Bitcoin (to freely scale to massive sizes, to support on-chain transaction needs).  This seems to be of grave concern, no?

-B-

----------------------------------------
----------------------------------------
----------------------------------------