lopp: lopp: My well connected nodes with over 100 peers use < 10 KB/S downstream and < 150 KB/S upstream on average: https://statoshi.info/dashboard/db/bandwidth-usage

Your well connected nodes work thanks to the hard work of the Bitcoin developers and pioneers.

Thank them for that instead of showing them the finger.

Let’s say that we wanted Bitcoin to match VISA using the block size.

Let’s scale up to half of Visa’s capacity of around 22,000 transactions per second: 10,000 Bitcoin transactions per second requires 1.6 GB blocks and would result in a block chain that grows by 87 TB (Terabytes) per year, consuming storage of 1.5 TB per week. (The above example does not take into consideration the impossibility of this theoretical scenario due to lag introduced by transaction and block validation - pushing 1.6GB blocks around the network for consensus seeking). Source: https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/block-size-bitcoin-not-scale-effectively/ (and similar figures from other places)

Supposing the comment about this scenario being “impossible” (due to block propagation) is incorrect, will you be able to handle >3MB/sec 24/7 (and the hard disk space)? That’s not accounting for the bandwidth required for relaying transactions or upload, or the time to verify all transactions. (I think the math is right: 1600/10 => 160MB/min => 2.7MB/sec, plus overhead. By the time you finish downloading one block, you have to immediately start downloading another. Faster bandwidth needed to account for variation in block time, txns, upload, overhead, etc.)

If so, you are one of the lucky few enthusiasts left with a mini data center at home. Certainly no Bitseed boxes. And you’re pretty much donating a good chunk of money to supporting the network.

Lightning Network can easily handle that sort of TPS rate without needing to reduce the number of full nodes.

lopp: lopp: Small block proponents may think that larger blocks will centralize the network by pricing out individuals from running nodes.

Why do you keep framing it this way? Again: nobody is advocating 1MB blocks. People want to optimize the network’s utility without compromising its decentralization.

There are various suggestions for how to do the “right block size”, and how to increase the txn rate without touching the block size.

lopp: lopp: http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-August/010384.html The claims are invalid; the code doesn’t run in that state.

The claim I made is still valid.

I said: It is actively hostile toward Tor users. Both of those links support that claim.

Bitcoin does not have a Tor blacklist. Bitcoin does not treat Tor users like second class citizens. Bitcoin XT does.